Trending Topics:

Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza — same way she lost it in Iraq the last time

on 224 Comments
Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Famously, Hillary Clinton lost her bid to be president in 2008 six years before the election, when she cast a vote for the Iraq war. Barack Obama, who’d been against that war as a nobody state senator in Illinois, was able to run to her left in appealing to the Democratic Party base, and win the nomination.

Hillary’s done it again. Her pro-war comments in that famous interview two weeks ago have painted her into a right wing neoconservative corner. In 2016, a Democratic candidate will again emerge to run to her left and win the party base, again because of pro-war positioning on the Middle East that Hillary has undertaken in order to please neoconservatives.

The last time it was Iraq, this time it was Gaza. Hillary Clinton had nothing but praise for Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza, and echoed him in saying that Hamas just wanted to pile up dead civilians for the cameras. She was “hepped up” to take on the jihadists, she said that Obama’s policy of “not doing stupid shit” was not a good policy. She undermined Obama for talking to Iran and for criticizing Israel over the number of civilian casualties in Gaza. She laid all the fault for the massacre at Hamas’s door.

And once again, Hillary Clinton will pay for this belligerency; she won’t tenant the White House.

Am I saying that the Gaza massacre will have actual weight in American politics in 2016? Yes. I know I’m going out on a limb, but I believe that the discourse on Israel/Palestine is shifting so fast in this country that by 2016 the Democratic Party base will be overwhelmingly against Hillary’s position on supporting Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and that a rival will exploit this sentiment for political gain. And she will tack too late, and too feebly, as she did in 2008.

Consider: Gallup says that Israel’s actions in Gaza were unjustified in the eyes of the young, people of color, women, and Democrats, and overwhelmingly in some of those categories 51-25% disapproval among the young. 47-35 percent among Democrats, 44-33 among women, 49-25 among nonwhites.

Now remind me: who makes up the Democratic base? Women, Democrats, people of color. And as we all know, primaries are dominated by the true believers.

Consider that at the 2012 convention, there was a floor demonstration against the party platform to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Barack Obama’s minions railroaded that through because he was worried about losing donors. Those grassroots have only gotten stronger in the years since.

Two years is a long time– who would have bet on Barack Obama in 2006? And I’m saying the Israel/Palestine issue will at last be politicized by 2016; it will be a subject that people discuss openly. Jewish youth and liberal Zionists will have calved off the iceberg of pro-Israel support inside the Jewish establishment; they will be a real political bloc that will give a candidate confidence at last to criticize Israel. AIPAC will be a dirty word for a whole lot more people by 2016; it will be politicized inside the Democratic base. And Hillary is AIPAC’s darling. As MJ Rosenberg jokes, she won’t take a position on Ferguson, MO, without checking in with AIPAC.

Hillary is shrewd. She supported the Gaza massacre for the same reason she supported the US invasion of Iraq: to please the Israel lobby, that segment of American political life that helped get her husband into office over George H.W. Bush in 1992; that purged Jimmy Carter from her party and James Baker from the other one; and that permeated every corner of the George W. Bush administration as well as every Senate office from the Northeast. There’s huge money and establishment/media support in the Israel lobby. That’s why she gave her bombshell interview to Jeffrey Goldberg, who once served in the Israeli army, at a prison where they tortured Palestinians. From his lips to the lobby’s ears.

Jeffrey Goldberg

Jeffrey Goldberg

Shrewd– but too clever by half, as the saying goes. The lobby’s power is ebbing. Gaza has dealt it another blow. Young Jews are openly challenging the Jewish establishment, and mark my word, within a year we are going to see cover stories in national magazines about the Jewish political revolution, featuring inspiring young Jews like Jacob Ari Labendz and Cecilie Surasky and Michael Berg and Naomi Dann of Jewish Voice for Peace. By 2016, we’re going to see “60 Minutes” covering the Israel lobby. It’s not that Zionism won’t still have a friend in high places (just look at the chairman of the biggest media company in the world talking about his personal connection to Israel), but the story will finally be in the news because the Jewish monolith will have fractured sufficiently that the claim that it’s anti-Semitic to address the Israel lobby will have lost all its power. And the unending wars in the Middle East are going to turn people to our hand in religious conflict, and politicize Zionism in the way that FDR and Truman once tried to do, when they said establishing a Jewish state in the Middle East was inviting World War 3. Maybe even Chris Matthews will talk about the lobby.

And Hillary Clinton will once again be isolated in her own party as a warmonger. She has great political gifts. She’s street smart. She’s tough. She can always tell you the lay of the land. She knows the addresses of all the bosses.

But as she proved in 2002 when she voted for the Iraq war, she lacks vision. She has no idea what’s coming.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

224 Responses

  1. Justpassingby on August 23, 2014, 11:32 am

    If there is such a big change in the democratic camp how come only 3 of them (or was it 4?) rejected the recent resolution during the war?
    Where is this big change when it comes to the democrats because frankly I havent seen any proof of it.

    • The author should have found some way to tell you, “Gallup says that Israel’s actions in Gaza were unjustified in the eyes of the young, people of color, women, and Democrats, and overwhelmingly in some of those categories 51-25% disapproval among the young. 47-35 percent among Democrats, 44-33 among women, 49-25 among nonwhites.”

      Oh, wait. That’s a direct quote from his article. I guess he DID find a way to tell you.

      You wrote, “Where is this big change when it comes to the democrats because frankly I havent seen any proof of it.”

      You likely never will, since what you see is clearly not dictated by what is there.

      Additionally, you conflated the “democratic base” that the author referred to, with a collection of spineless senators that voted for complicity.

      That is a strange mistake to make. Of course, rather than being an honest mistake, that could just be a hastily thrown together straw man.

      By the way, regarding your previous comment to me:

      Since I’m too late to add a new comment at the bottom, I’ll just add:

      Great piece. Thanks, Philip Weiss, for writing it!

      When politicians don’t even hesitate before conforming to the opinion of a few financial and media backers, rather than the opinion of the electorate, even the façade of democracy can no longer be maintained.

      • Justpassingby on August 25, 2014, 3:37 am

        CBC banned me for commenting on Israels genocidal extremists

        If you read the article it was the democratic party that would change not its voters – where is the evidence for that? There have always been a lesser support in terms of war in the dem. voting block. Thats nothing new.
        In sum=There is no proof that democrats will change its way on I/P.

        Also I am not sure what “previous comment” I have made to you or even what you want to tell by the link.

  2. Krauss on August 23, 2014, 11:40 am

    I wish you are right, I really do, but I do think you are wrong.

    But only partly wrong! Here’s why:

    Hillary will win in 2016. Why? Because elections are always on domestic issues. 2008 was decided on the economy, certainly between McCain and Obama. And even between Obama and Hillary, Obama won primarily because of the idea of a non-white president appealed to the notion of the American Dream, that anyone can make it in America.

    Iraq didn’t help her, but I wouldn’t say it was her death knell.

    Also, in 2016, the idea of a woman president will be strong. The only one who can mount a sufficient campaign against Hillary is Sen. Warren and we have seen that she has been totally craven to AIPAC, too.

    But the part that I do agree with you is that I/P is going to be politicized within the Democratic party, finally. We already saw glimpses of it in 2012 and 2016 is shaping up to be that much greater an issue. Hillary will win, and she will bulldoze the base because she has a donor class to please and appease.

    But post-Hillary, we will not see someone as craven to AIPAC as she is.

    Remember, she is old. She & Bill came of age politically as the Jewish-Zionist establishment was peaking in power. Her daughter is married to a Jew. She is deeply ingrained in our culture, and she identifies much more deeply with Jews than Obama ever did, even if he was always surrounded by Jews politically, his cultural upbringing and coming-of-age was not heavily Jewish. Hillary’s was. And her generation, when she was young, faced a much more monolithically Zionist generation than the upcoming politicians in America who are seeing Jews in their 20s and 30s, where Zionism is much more contested among progressives.

    • American on August 23, 2014, 12:17 pm

      ” Because elections are always on domestic issues.”

      A candidate who ‘can connect’ in the public’s mind the impact of US foreign policy on americans welfare in domestic policies could win.
      Because the public is according to everything we see and hear increasingly against foreign involvement, paying for foreign involvement, warring for foreign interest.

      “America First” would sweep the electorate, people are asking for it—-unfortunately there is no candidate on the scene who will make that their platform because thats not where the big donor money is.

      So all we will get is the usual song and dances about single issues on domestics and not the big picture on what happens and has happened to domestics because of foreign adventures and etanglements.

      • just on August 23, 2014, 4:32 pm


      • Stogumber on August 24, 2014, 12:13 pm

        You don’t think that a movement which identifies – or is identified – with the historical “America First” movement will be doomed from its beginning?

      • just on August 24, 2014, 12:49 pm

        How much damage has our “foreign policy” done?

    • annie on August 23, 2014, 1:31 pm

      Obama won primarily because of the idea of a non-white president appealed to the notion of the American Dream

      hmmm, i don’t think so. he might have won the presidency because of that but the primary he won because he was perceived, unlike hillary, as an anti war candidate. maybe you missed that video (anti -hillary) that came out in the primaries. i can’t recall the song but it went viral. it had a ‘big brother’ vibe. the orwell/1984 big bro, not the tv show.

      • on August 24, 2014, 8:01 am

        Obama won primarily because of the idea of a non-white president appealed to the notion of the American Dream.

        Obama won because he ran as a true liberal, a true progressive. His being black probably hurt him more than it helped him.

        He has governed as a puppet of the monied interests, of course. It has been disgusting to watch him proclaim time and time again that Israel has the right to defend itself as it slaughters the people of Gaza.

      • LeaNder on August 24, 2014, 11:22 am

        I agree, Annie. Absolutely.

        Krauss once again uses one of his core narratives as argumentative basis. Do I need to tell you what it is?

        Has anyone really forgotten how closely beneath the race issue – Obama, the Muslim? Birth Certificate missing? – the Iraq war surfaced?

        I am with Phil on this, and I am not an optimist natural, since no American. What I realized watching US elections over the years, is, that money may not be everything … Americans aren’t stupid.

        In any case, Clinton should not be the first female president.

    • pineywoodslim on August 23, 2014, 7:17 pm

      She didn’t get the 2008 nomination primarily due to her support of the Iraq war, a war which had the full support of neocons and zionists.

      But being against that war was not considered a vote against Israel among most of the electorate. Mostly it was weariness with how wrong that war had gone.

      She may not get the 2016 nomination primarily due to her support of neocon, warhawk positions on Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine.

      And being against those positions is not primarily considered anti-Israel, again at least among the electorate.

      So, I don’t really think the 2016 nomination will turn on how much the voters approve or disapprove of Israel, but basically on how sick of war those voters are.

      And on that basis, I think she has created some real problems for herself–which are well-deserved.

    • Ellen on August 24, 2014, 12:09 pm

      Great comments, Kraus. But I think we are in for some surprises.

      The beltway vortex is it’s own reality. It seems most pundits claiming Hilary as next Dem candidate are living in that bubble.

      Most citizens of the US deeply resent Washington and all it has spawned and stolen from the rest of the country. It’s war machine and it’s enablers like HR Clinton will be an easy target in the next election.

      Warren is too craven and will be a good puppet for any issue outside of bankruptcy, consumer credit, etc.

      Some eyes are now on Jim Webb.

      • just on August 24, 2014, 12:28 pm

        MY eyes are on Jim Webb– no BS nor bootlicking.

    • samlebon2306 on August 24, 2014, 12:32 pm

      ” Because elections are always on domestic issues.”

      How spending in more wars could help domestic issues? It’s well known and understood that wars bring misery and debts. Either you spend money on social services or waste it on the military, not both ways.

  3. seafoid on August 23, 2014, 11:42 am

    Israel is a car crash as this FT editorial shows.
    Is it anti-Semitic to say Israel has gone off the deep end?

    “First, Israel, a mature democracy, is frequently subjected to a double standard that is not applied to other states. To criticise Israel for its intervention in Gaza is not anti-Semitic, even though some of the Jewish state’s supporters claim it to be so. A distinction can be drawn between those who criticise Israel and those who demonise it, subjecting it to opprobrium well beyond what would apply to any other nation. In London this month, thousands marched in protest at Israel’s actions in Gaza. Why have there been few such demonstrations against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, now responsible for 150,000 deaths?

    It is also reasonable to ask whether Europeans today display an indifference towards anti-Semitism that is not evident when there are attacks on other faiths. Across Europe those demonstrating against Israel use crude anti-Jewish slogans and images to press home their case, but there is rarely a public backlash. An example of such indifference came in London last week when the manager of a J Sainsbury supermarket store withdrew kosher food from the shelves for fear that anti-Israeli protesters might attack the shop. By doing so, the store appeased Israel haters. It also deprived religious people in Britain of their rights.

    The hope of all must be the creation of a Palestinian state alongside a lasting guarantee of Israeli security. Europe’s political and religious leaders must redouble efforts in the fight against all racism. They should defend religious liberty and the right of people of all faiths to practise their religion without fear or intimidation.
    The alternative – a world of bigotry and intolerance – is a menace to us all.”

    And when Israel is a global centre of bigotry and intolerance, with zero interest in granting Palestinians their rights, what is a thinking person to do ?

    • Krauss on August 23, 2014, 11:49 am

      First, Israel, a mature democracy, is frequently subjected to a double standard that is not applied to other states.

      I agree with this FT editorial. No other Western publication, FT included, would bend over backwards to call an Apartheid state that has committed what in many ways qualifies as genocide in the recent mass slaughter in Gaza a “democracy”.

      The reason why they do this is out of fear, and because there are a lot of people like Brian Roberts in the U.S. media. Plus, a lot of Anglos these days are intermarried with Jews, such as the CEO of the NYT. Why disturb the house peace and quiet?

      These WASPy publications wouldn’t call Apartheid South Africa a democracy – and they didn’t. So why do they keep insisting on calling Israel one? I agree with FT: it is double standards. They are afraid of the massive Zionist backlash (and the house peace).

      • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 1:01 pm

        “The Financial Times, one of the world’s leading business news organisations, is recognised internationally for its authority, integrity and accuracy.”

        Their slogan is “without fear of favour”

        But they can’t do it consistently on Israel although they do have some excellent articles that show that Israel is circling the toilet bowl.

        Money is still holding a lot of people back from speaking their minds on Israel.

        But it’s a minority of a minority who pull the strings and they are due a serious correction.

    • American on August 23, 2014, 12:21 pm

      Lets reverse that whataboutery gibberish.

      What about the US helping to over throw Lybia for less violence on its public than Israel is inflicting on Gaza?

      So what about that whataboutery zios…huummm?

      • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 2:15 pm

        Maybe there have been so few protests against Assad because the public figured out he would become an ally in the war against ISIS LOL.

  4. seafoid on August 23, 2014, 11:46 am

    “Famously, Hillary Clinton lost her bid to be president in 2008 six years before the election, when she cast a vote for the Iraq war.”

    No Dem is going to call out Israel for the racist cruel vindictive deluded tinpot ethnocentric provincial kip that it is. Unless someone can show me where the alternative money for a 2016 run is going from.

    Voting against Iraq was easy but against Israel, in 2016? Too early I bet.
    the cause is not yet lost in middle America, ya salaam.

  5. Philip Munger on August 23, 2014, 11:58 am

    And Hillary Clinton will once again be isolated in her own party as a warmonger. She has great political gifts. She’s street smart. She’s tough. She can always tell you the lay of the land. She knows the addresses of all the bosses.

    But as she proved in 2002 when she voted for the Iraq war, she lacks vision. She has no idea what’s coming.

    HRC may lack vision and merely know how to get the bosses to throw $$$$ her way, but she wasn’t outflanked in 2008 by the left. She was outflanked by a campaign that created an illusion of the left.

    Young progressives who will actually show up in the booth or stick their voting envelope in the mail in October-November 2016 are not as excited about the Democratic Party now as they were in 2006 to 2008. There is far more concern about accelerating climate change and its detrimental effects than over Gaza, especially in the Southwest, where the realities of water emergencies will probably dominate public policy in 2015 and 2016. There is a growing awareness that we live in an oligarchical society that is supported by both parties, and that overshadows worries about West Bank settlements.

    We ARE a war weary society, even more than eight years ago, but I see no credible challenger for the presidency about to emerge from the left. Both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have mouthed their full support for the “evil Hamas” meme.

    If a credible candidate were about to emerge, there is one brilliant blogger who would be keyed in to that by now – Howie Klein, at Down With Tyranny! He doesn’t. (Anyone unfamiliar with Howie’s site might check it out. He knows more about each individual U.S. House District, Senate race and governor’s mansion than anyone else out there.)

    Just who do you think is going to seize HRC’s mantle, Phil?

    • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 4:06 pm

      Why do you think climate change will be such an issue in the South West next year, Philip ?
      I imagine eventually it will expose the US political system for the oligarchical joke it is. The amount of space Israel takes up in it is such a sign of how twisted the priorities are and I can’t see that continuing when climate change really gets going.

      • Philip Munger on August 23, 2014, 4:45 pm

        I don’t know where you live, seafoid, but I travel to California frequently. They are in the worst drought there, supposedly, in 500 years, with no end in sight. All but a very few of the water storage reservoirs are at record low levels.

        There has been too much competition for too little water there for generations, but it will come to a head very soon, unless they get a lot of moisture there that no climatologists see as likely. There are millions too many people in the American southwest to support in the long term, unless immense desalinization projects get undertaken fairly soon.

        Between now and 2020, the negative impacts of climate change will become far more important issues than they now are. To a large extent, climate change and aridity worldwide are driving unrest, poverty, violence and migration. Control of water has always been a driver of land grabs and violence, including in Palestine.

      • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 4:57 pm

        That part of the US is a bit like Australia- very fragile and unsuited to European population levels. I didn’t think CC would hit so quickly.

        I’m in Europe- have been watching the flowers struggle this summer- roses were badly hit- only about half bloomed. Now it’s September and there are still buds waiting for the right moment to burst forth. That lack of predictable weather for agriculture is going to be existential for food production given the population load of the planet.

        I dread the storms winter will bring. There is so much more energy in the atmosphere and last winter was brutal.

        Syria’s war was driven initially the climate change refugees.
        Iraq is also about water.

        The Middle East may have been the area of the Bible but if the Tigris dries up before Basra and the Nile reduces its flow to Egypt what sort of chance does Israel have of avoiding the chaos long term ?

      • Philip Munger on August 23, 2014, 5:14 pm

        I’m in Europe- have been watching the flowers struggle this summer- roses were badly hit- only about half bloomed. Now it’s September and there are still buds waiting for the right moment to burst forth. That lack of predictable weather for agriculture is going to be existential for food production given the population load of the planet.

        I dread the storms winter will bring. There is so much more energy in the atmosphere and last winter was brutal.

        And now there is Bardarbunga erupting. Good luck, seafoid!

      • libra on August 23, 2014, 6:37 pm

        Seafoid: Now it’s September…

        It’s still August where I am so the future’s a little further off for me to predict.

        Paradoxically, the hot desert regions will be most suited to large-scale solar power and that can provide desalination. But the key point is that in the future more and more people in such regions, Israel included, will be dependent on a high-technology infrastructure. Not something to be bombed every couple of years without huge implications. It’s the political chaos that’s the real problem as it precludes solutions to any other problem.

      • Shingo on August 23, 2014, 6:44 pm

        You might be right Phillip,

        But here in Australia, we see the same thing. Years of drought and then a few weeks of heavy rains and the public attention is suddenly diverted.

        All it needs is sine rain before 2016.

      • Bob_Salad on August 23, 2014, 7:57 pm

        But I’m betting the Californian fairways are still green.

      • Pixel on August 23, 2014, 11:22 pm


    • on August 24, 2014, 8:03 am

      “She was outflanked by a campaign that created an illusion of the left.”


      • ritzl on August 24, 2014, 4:11 pm

        @Giles- Yup. Brilliant.

    • radii on August 24, 2014, 9:42 pm

      Hillary has intellect and she’s made statements throughout her political life that let us know she knows the reality of the horrid oppression the Palestinians suffer, but she is also power-hungry and it is the zionists who control her access to the power she has and wants … but at that level of politics a heart is not valued, nor are morals, nor are principals … power is its own end

  6. snowdrift on August 23, 2014, 12:01 pm

    I would love for this to be true, but I’m very dubious. Obama was already prominent before the 2012 elections; he was the next big thing. What he managed to do in 2012 was skip the “next” part and jump in front of Clinton, who ran an incredibly complacent campaign.

    But where is the young, charismatic Dem who will run against Clinton? And unfortunately I think a lot more than Palestine will be needed to peel off the woman vote, which Clinton will have a lock on. So unless our mystery candidate is also a woman, or perhaps Hispanic, in order to rally another voting block, I don’t see it happening at all. I think Clinton’s hawkishness and overall more conservative appeal (older, whiter voters) will lead to a less enthusiastic campaign than 2012 Obama’s, but that will be the extent of the price she pays for her views.

    And of course, in the realm of unlikely possibilities, the other reason why Clinton might lose the White House is if the Republican wins, but for our purposes that’s even worse. It’s choosing between the Haim Saban-approved candidate and the Sheldon Adelson-approved candidate.

    I’d love to be wrong though.

    • Citizen on August 23, 2014, 3:09 pm

      Haim and Sheldon might end up supporting the same candidate–Hillary.

    • Shingo on August 23, 2014, 6:49 pm

      But where is the young, charismatic Dem who will run against Clinton?

      My sentiments too. If there was going to be a arrious challenger to Hillary, we would be able to identify them by now. Elizabeth Warren? Unlikely. Joe Biden? No chance.

      Hillary seriously has too much in her war chest to be challenged by any Dems. If she really was as vulnerable as Phil suggests, then the real threat will come from the Republicans.

  7. seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 12:03 pm

    It is going to be easy for opponents of Hillary Clinton to paint her as a bloodthirsty neocon, a warmonger, too old, tired, stale, mediocre, corrupt, etc.

    But here is the problem facing any possible Democratic challenger to Hillary (like Elizabeth Warren): the Israel lobby will be applying maximum pressure on them either to stay out of the race or to fall into line behind AIPAC. My impression is that Warren, and other Democrats of her stature, wouldn’t dare buck AIPAC — they will simply parrot the AIPAC party line in order to remain financially viable.

    Don’t rule out the possibility of Hillary Clinton torpedoing her own campaign — she is a lackluster mind and crude personality who makes unforced errors — not nearly as bright, graceful and politically adept as Bill Clinton. She’s gradually aged into a real battle-axe.

  8. ckg on August 23, 2014, 12:07 pm

    Phil, we love you because you are the eternal optimist. But here in Detroit during NetRoots 2014, which is supposed to represent the ‘progressive wing’ of the Democratic Party, there wasn’t a single session devoted to the Middle East (except for one lone session on Iran policy). This was in despite of the fact that the Gaza massacre had been going on for a month by then. Progressive darling Senator Warren made her presence known by dodging a question on Gaza. Vice President Biden, who voted yes with Hillary on the Iraq War vote in 2003, was greeted with cheers of ‘Uncle Joe!, Uncle Joe!’. Well, there were some crowd dissenters on immigration and I did see a single protester outside with a ‘Free Chelsea Manning’ sign.

    But there will be no one who will challenge Hillary from the left in 2016 on Gaza or I/P. Hillary will learn from the 2012 DNC delegates’ display of support for Palestinians by making sure that her AIPAC-written I/P platform plank gets railroaded through. I suspect Senator Sanders may have a conscience on I/P, but he hasn’t demonstrated it on roll call. But I love your optimism Phil.

    • Pippilin on August 23, 2014, 1:16 pm

      Bernie is anti-gun control. Vermont is a big state for hunters.

    • annie on August 23, 2014, 3:03 pm

      ckg, net roots nation is a daily kos convention. that blog is hostile to engaging over israel and and all discourse surrounding israel is monitored closely. the convention (back when i was paying attention which i do not anymore) wouldn’t even ALLOW a panel on i/p even tho there was a LOT of interest in one. it does not reflect most dems in terms of the p/1 issue at all. iow even a dedicated dem who cares about the issue would not do it there unless they were addicted to abuse. so of course they won’t host “a single session devoted to the Middle East”. they stick close to party lines. they don’t represent the kind of cross section you’re going to get at the dem convention full of part delegates (remember the jerusalem vote at the dem convention?- they care).

      daily kos is more like a club, one could even describe as cultish. and if they can’t drum you out over specific things you can say, they bully you out or make stuff up. for example i was kicked out on charges i had a sockpuppet. they had to reinstate me because i threatened to sue them (they knew very well it wasn’t me because they have access to internet provider addresses, and they refused to give me the address they claimed was me, which is absurd if it was keeping myself from myself). anyway, this represents dailykoser’s. no panel on i/p allowed. the purpose is to elect better dems, and until they start pressuring dems to drop support for israel, forget them.

      and look what happened to their traffic when the slaughter started

      exactly the opposite of ours. what does that tell you? readers were probably interested, and as a result spending their time elsewhere.

      • just on August 23, 2014, 4:39 pm

        amen, Annie. I left.

        I also left other “progressive” venues because even mentioning P/I without assigning blame to the Palestinians was impossible. Some of those venues have changed their stance, but they were really slow to do so. It took this latest massacre to elicit movement forward.

      • ckg on August 23, 2014, 6:04 pm

        ckg, net roots nation is a daily kos convention. that blog is hostile to engaging over israel

        I agree, Annie. On this issue many Democratic venues, e.g. DailyKos and Media Matters, flee engagement like a cornered Elizabeth Warren.

      • Pixel on August 23, 2014, 11:29 pm


  9. just on August 23, 2014, 12:28 pm

    “And once again, Hillary Clinton will pay for this belligerency; she won’t tenant the White House.”

    I hope that you are correct. I wish I could “see” somebody stand up and speak out against Israel’s crimes and our complicity in them. Every single one of them has at least caved in; most have embraced the Apartheid state and its genocidal actions.

    Craven prostitutes, squandering our own national security and whatever remaining we have left for $$$ and a free trip to Disrael.

  10. American on August 23, 2014, 12:28 pm

    I have an excellent idea on how to’ trap’ candidates as ‘traitors’ and have it blow up in public….but on the 1 in a trillion chance some patriot group might decide to do this to get their candidate elected I am not telling.

  11. Philip Munger on August 23, 2014, 12:29 pm

    I suspect Senator Sanders may have a conscience on I/P, but he hasn’t demonstrated it on roll call. But I love your optimism Phil.

    Sen. Sanders, venting at constituents last week, over Gaza:

    • just on August 23, 2014, 12:35 pm

      Another one bites the dust…

      For shame.

      Those Vermonters calling BS on him sound like my friends up there!

      (thanks for this video, Phil– I had seen some of it. Who is the young man that is doing the commentary?)

      • Philip Munger on August 23, 2014, 2:41 pm

        Who is the young man that is doing the commentary?

        Follow On Twitter: @KyleKulinski

        Like On Facebook:

        The Kyle Kulinski Show airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio monday – friday 4-6pm Eastern.

        (I found out about the encounter through Kelly Walters)

      • just on August 23, 2014, 3:03 pm

        Thanks, Philip.

        Someone to watch…

    • ckg on August 23, 2014, 12:46 pm

      Wow. Thanks Philip!

    • philweiss on August 23, 2014, 1:37 pm

      I love this Philip, this is the greatest video I’ve ever seen in my life.
      It’s generational Zionism. Where was he on Vietnam? We dont even have to ask.
      Notice the uproar. This is the Democratic street. It proves my point. There’s a rebellion afoot.

      • Philip Munger on August 23, 2014, 2:32 pm

        Glad to share it, Phil W. It sort of threw me too.

        It might prove your point better if there were a credible candidate to present a viable progressive platform from with the Democratic Party structure.

      • Philip Munger on August 23, 2014, 3:05 pm

        Also, youtube has at least one clean version of the event, without commentary. I searched youtube with: Bernie Sanders Gaza – sort by date.

      • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 4:12 pm

        This video has less commentary

        Bernie’s use of Netanyahu’s talking points as well as of the hand to get people to STFU is noted

      • Philip Munger on August 24, 2014, 4:08 am

        That’s the version I probably should have embedded in my comment. Thanks, seafoid.

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 6:57 am

        Thanks for the link in the first place , Philip. The links here are so insightful in terms of building up a picture of what is happening.

        Jonathan Freedland argued recently in the New York Review that only people like Shavit (and Bernie) have the gravitas to talk to Israelis and help it change direction .
        “Perhaps this is a weakness, but Jews tend to listen to those who argue from inside rather than outside. Witness the Haggadah’s distinction at the seder table between the wise son and the wicked. Technically, all that separates them is the grammatical difference between the first and second person. What does this mean to you, asks the wicked son; what does this mean to us, asks the wise son. But that distinction makes all the difference.
        This contrast in tone might be why Judis has drawn fire from the very writers who lavished praise on Shavit, Leon Wieseltier among them. Judis’s book is rigorous, well sourced, and well argued and he has Zionist credentials of his own (he volunteered to fight for Israel in 1967 but was too late). But at times his prose strikes the wrong note, as if he is less concerned to win over Jews than to expose their moral failings. In view of his thesis that American Jews have made, and can make, the difference in the Israel–Palestine conflict, he might have done more to persuade rather than alienate them.

        This, perhaps, is the ultimate role of the much-derided liberal Zionist. They are better placed than most to move Zionist, including Israeli, opinion. Finkelstein concludes his philippic against Shavit with a declaration that, despite the “original sin” of its creation, Israel’s fate is not set in stone. It can take a first step toward closure, consigning the past to the past, and perhaps even toward reconciliation, with a “formal acknowledgement of what happened in 1948.” For an Israeli patriot such as Shavit, profoundly committed to his country, to have written this powerful, complex, absorbing book and for it to have received the plaudits it has suggest progress toward that necessary goal.”

        That argument was killed in a drone strike mid August

        And Shavit can shove it.

    • Susie Kneedler on August 23, 2014, 1:44 pm

      Thanks, Phil!: I think you’re right about Neocon H Clinton. I’m overjoyed at how many friends–of all political perspectives–are discovering the injustice in Palestine, as well as the wrongs of US wars.

      And, thanks, Philip M, for that sickening video.
      More on Bernie Sanders’s hypocrisy in betraying liberal values:

      “Bernard Sanders’ Transit From ‘Avowed Socialist’ to Political Opportunist:
      Bomber Bernie Can’t Take the Heat” by JAY MOORE describes the meeting in the video, .
      “Senators Sanders & Leahy Join in Deeply Flawed Resolution Supporting Israel:
      Why Did Bernie Sanders Get Gaza So Wrong?” by JAMES MARC LEAS, .
      “Senator Bait-and-Switch: The Myth of Bernie Sanders” by THOMAS H. NAYLOR, .

    • ckg on August 23, 2014, 8:52 pm

      How does one embed a video in a post on MW?

      • annie on August 23, 2014, 9:00 pm

        ckg, i’ll leave answer in the comment policy thread soon.

    • ckg on August 25, 2014, 9:46 am

      Sen. Sanders has a weekly engagement “Brunch With Bernie” during the first hour of Thom Hartmann’s Friday radio program. It’s billed as a “national town hall meeting” where the senator answers questions from callers. It’s broadcast live Friday noon eastern on Sirius XM Progress channel but also on many local news-talk radio stations. Thom Hartmann’s web site also airs the show live (and live only) and provides a list of local stations that carry his show. I would love to hear the senator explode again.

  12. seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 12:47 pm

    # war harpies in the Republican and Democratic Parties

    1. Condoleezza Rice
    2. Hillary Clinton
    3. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
    4. Jennifer Rubin
    5. Kimberly Kagan
    6. Madeleine Albright
    7. Michele Bachmann
    8. Michelle Malkin
    9. Pamela Geller
    10. Samantha Power
    11. Sarah Palin
    12. Susan Rice
    13. Victoria Nuland

    Seriously: are there any significant differences on foreign policy between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann?

    They all take their marching orders from the Israel lobby, AIPAC, neoconservatives and neoliberals. It’s all about all war all the time on behalf of building Greater Israel.

    Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice are classical “liberal Zionists” — with all that oxymoronic expression implies. One doesn’t recall feminism, as it was originally conceived, as being a warmongering ideology — dedicated to “totally obliterating” foreign enemies or arguing that it was “worth it” to kill a half million children with sanctions.

    • just on August 23, 2014, 1:22 pm

      Those 13 are the tip of a rather massive iceberg.

    • ckg on August 23, 2014, 1:30 pm

      I agree that Hillary, Albright, Power and Susan Rice take marching orders from the ‘Israel lobby, AIPAC, neoconservatives and neoliberals’. But Palin and Bachmann are two seriously demented fundamentalists who foremost look to Daniel, and Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation for foreign policy guidance.

      • seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 1:47 pm


        I agree that Hillary, Albright, Power and Susan Rice take marching orders from the ‘Israel lobby, AIPAC, neoconservatives and neoliberals’. But Palin and Bachmann are two seriously demented fundamentalists who foremost look to Daniel, and Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation for foreign policy guidance.

        It doesn’t matter whether pro-Israel militants and hawks are religious or secular, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat — the results are precisely the same.

    • tree on August 23, 2014, 4:22 pm


      Can we cut with the gender-specific slurs of “harpy” and “battleaxe”? I had enough of them in 2008 when it became excedingly apparent that slurring women was still considered acceptable political discourse.

      • seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 4:41 pm


        Can we cut with the gender-specific slurs of “harpy” and “battleaxe”?

        No — you are missing the point. I am pro-feminist. I like women. I like women in politics.

        What is distressing is that quite a few women who are leaders in the contemporary Democratic Party, and who are associated in the public mind with feminist liberal values that are supposed to stand in opposition to traditional male aggression and warmongering, come across as aggressive warmongers themselves. It’s a great disappointment. We were looking for women to bring more compassion and kindness to a male-dominated cultural and political system that has been driven by brutal aggression.

        You don’t experience any cognitive dissonance on this issue, no mental jangling? — some of us do.

        Hillary Clinton has acquired much of her political momentum on the grounds that she is a woman. Americans really need to pay much more attention to what she is saying and how she is saying it — she is a crude militarist, even a swaggering militarist. Glenn Greenwald got it right about her:

        Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.

      • Shingo on August 24, 2014, 1:44 am

        I have to agree with Sean,

        I too like and respect women, in fact I have more wornen friends than male, and I too am delighted to see women in politics. I don’t know enough about Gernany’s domestic politics to judge Merkel, but in the international arena, I think she’s been impressive leader and put her make contemparies to shame.

        Power is clearly a very intelligent woman but has sole for… Power. Same thing with Susan Rice. Anne Marie Slaughter and Hillary have clearly decided that the way to gain credibility in Washington in to be a rabbid hawk.

        I realize it ‘a difficult to discuss these issues without delving into dangerous waters as far as mysoginist and sexism goes, but let’s not get into contortions trying to parse put language to make a simple observation.

      • seanmcbride on August 24, 2014, 9:36 am


        There are some religious fundamentalists — Christian and Jewish — who possess a more nuanced and complex humanity and literary sensibility than some doctrinaire leftists who have developed strict rulebooks governing approved and banned words.

        By the way, has anyone paid any attention to Rachel Maddow’s coverage of the slaughter in Gaza? Maddow is a strident, self-righteous and often overbearing “progressive” who seems to be too timid to discuss Mideast and Israeli politics in much depth.

      • tree on August 24, 2014, 3:22 am

        I don’t care whether you “like women” or not, sean. Its beside the point. Again, in IMO, you can criticize all you want but don’t use the slur “battleaxe” which is a a slur reserved for women. You are being particularly obtuse about this point, seeming to want me to agree that the term itself is not offensive but I consider it so, regardless of who it is describing.

        Notice that the very quote you used from Glenn Greenwald, although scathing in its criticism of Clinton, refrains from using sexist slurs against her. I have no quarrel with his opinion or how he expresses it. I think you are using demeaning terms, which is what I find objectionable.

      • seanmcbride on August 24, 2014, 8:44 am


        don’t use the slur “battleaxe” which is a a slur reserved for women. You are being particularly obtuse about this point, seeming to want me to agree that the term is not offensive but I consider it so, regardless of who is is used to describe.

        I think you are being exceptionally stupid on this point. I used the term deliberately to ridicule and annoy a certain group of women in the Republican and Democratic Parties who have betrayed their own highest principles regarding feminism, and who in many cases seem to be leading the charge to wage vicious neoconservative wars on behalf of Greater Israel without regard to the enormous damage to *women* and *children*.

        With regard to using gender-specific derogatory words for both males and females to describe particular individuals for whom the words fit, first-rate authors do it all the time in the year 2014 and will continue to do so for a long time to come. Used the right way, those words can be highly effective — they possess force and color.

        This doctrinaire and authoritarian approach you are taking towards language frankly bores me to tears. You really need to focus on the content of Hillary Clinton’s policies and not on the words that are being appropriately used to taunt those policies — and pay close attention to her flagrant hypocrisy on women’s issues and feminist values.

        Hillary Clinton is both a liberal Zionist and a feminist Zionist — quite a few Democrats are.

        By the way, I don’t care whether you agree with me or not on any of the above issues — feel free to believe whatever you like, to express yourself any way you like and to be offended by whatever you like. If the term “battleaxe” provokes your moral outrage and righteous indignation, fine. But you will only succeed in making me laugh.

      • DaBakr on August 24, 2014, 9:36 pm

        I know how annoying it might be to have an evil ‘zionazi’ affirm this but tree is correct. the same way you have to be careful to not mix up one’s anti-zionism with Jew-hatred and slurs against Jews one can not simply fling recognized female slurs around because a female politician happens to represent views you find abhorrent. M. Thatcher was also called a “an old battle-axe” and many other gender-specific names that often bring accolades when the same is a male. Its not that I am a big fan of political correct speech-as I am not. It is just that on a ‘progressive’ site like MW where other politically correct language is expected it should be expected when it pertains to women as well-not just certain women. I fully suspect there are many ways to express negative views of HC and other women without resorting to demeaning language. ……..OR-admit that PC language is just a polite and forced way that people use to cover up what they truly are implying.

      • seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 4:49 pm


        To put this another way: “feminist Zionist” is as much an oxymoron as “liberal Zionist.” To criticize feminist Zionists is no more an attack on feminists (or women in general) than criticism of liberal Zionists is an attack on liberals.

        One is noticing the egregious and absurd self-contradictions in these political labels (and in the politicians behind the labels).

        Criticism of Christian Zionists is not an attack on Christians.

      • tree on August 23, 2014, 9:19 pm

        Sean, you totally missed my point. You can criticize women politicians as much as you want. As a group they are no better than male politicians. But please don’t use words like “harpies” and “battleaxes”, as those are gender specific slurs meant to demean women as women, and as such are not simply “criticism”.

      • seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 10:00 pm


        You are much more politically correct than I am. One should be able to use terms like “harpy” and “battle-axe” with gusto to ridicule the hypocrisy of liberal/feminist Zionists in the Democratic Party who have been agitating for murder and mayhem, including the mass murder of children — the language is not directed at women in general — only at specific individual warmongers who have used feminism as a platform to help build their political careers.

        Feel feel to use whatever language suits you to describe Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice. By all means be polite and sensitive to their feelings, if that is your disposition.

      • seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 10:26 pm


        Some common definitions for “battle-axe”:

        1. a fierce, frightening and unpleasant older woman with strong opinions

        2. an unpleasant older woman who speaks in an angry way and tries to control others

        3. a domineering, aggressive, sharp-tempered person, especially a woman

        4. a derogatory word for an old woman who is tough, worn and not to be messed with

        When the description fits, use it. This is a perfectly legitimate word to use — as is “harpy” — in the appropriate circumstances. Such people exist. There are many derogatory terms for males that are also legitimate to use in the appropriate circumstances — and they have often been used by the greatest authors in world literature.

        The efforts by some progressives to regulate language along strict ideological lines tends to make me irritable. Sorry — but your admonition is rolling off my back. Perhaps you can convince Mondoweiss to ban these offensive words.

      • seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 10:47 pm


        The real issue here is the degree to which Zionism has infiltrated, subverted and hijacked feminism, gutted it of meaningful content, and replaced that content with aggressive Jewish ethnic nationalism — to the point that leading feminists in the Democratic Party now dismiss the mass murder of children as an inconsequential matter.

        Many other domains have been subjected to the same treatment and manipulation:

        1. Americanism
        2. atheism
        3. Christianity
        4. conservatism
        5. Conservative Judaism
        6. gay rights activism
        7. human rights activism
        8. liberalism
        9. libertarianism
        10. Orthodox Judaism
        11. progressivism
        12. Reform Judaism
        13. secular Jewish culture

        Hillary Clinton is a feminist in the same way that John Hagee is a Christian, John Bolton is a conservative, Chuck Schumer is a liberal and Bill Maher is an atheist. They are all in fact tools of Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud Zionism — and they are all agitating to push the United States into more Mideast wars on behalf of Greater Israel.

      • Pixel on August 23, 2014, 11:35 pm

        gotta hang with you on this one, tree.

        it’s 2014.

      • tree on August 24, 2014, 5:19 pm


        You are much more politically correct than I am. One should be able to use terms like “harpy” and “battle-axe” with gusto …

        No, I’m just more sensitive about using sexist slurs than you are. So what are the limits for you on demeaning terms? Should “one” be able to use terms like the “c” word “with gusto” to refer to individual women you disagree with or find offensive? Do you have any limits or is everything fair game as long as you only use the slurs to refer to “specific” individuals?

        By all means be polite and sensitive to their feelings, if that is your disposition.

        Again you seem clueless. It isn’t just the individual’s feelings we are talking about. Or do you honestly think that the only one who would be offended if you used a racial slur or a racial stereotype “with gusto” against Obama would be Obama himself? No one else should care what kind of language you use, since it is only referring to a “specific individual”?

      • Philemon on August 23, 2014, 7:09 pm

        Well, we can debate whether a less gender-specific slur would be as accurate. Maybe some male politicians would be better described as “harpies” as well.

        Hillary Clinton is virtually indistinguishable from her male counterparts. She’s like a female McCain, without the POW-Manchurian candidate excuse. The term “harpy” denotes one with an unusual or unnatural belligerance for a woman. I think Hillary’s got it. There are many more male psychopaths than female psychopaths.

        Tree, I agree with you, generally, but, in this case, I think it is fair.

      • tree on August 24, 2014, 5:33 pm

        Hillary Clinton is virtually indistinguishable from her male counterparts.

        So then why use gender related terms that are used to demean women and put them in their place, subservient to men, to refer to her? There are plenty of non-sexist terms that can be used to describe her and other candidates, male and female, so why resort to sexist stereotypes about women to criticize her specifically when she is, as you say, “virtually indistinguishable” from male politicians? This is my point. I don’t care whether it’s Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton or Michelle Bachman, or Medea Benjamin for that matter, who is the brunt of these loaded terms. I think its wrong and its lazy and sexist to use them, regardless of the female target.

      • Philemon on August 24, 2014, 8:49 pm

        Do we agree that Hillary is as extremely bellicose as John McCain? Now John McCain sort of has an excuse, maybe PTSD, but men are generally more bellicose than women, right? And Hillary is trying to out-do men on the bellicosity and psychopathy, among a self-selected population of lots of men with lots of psychopathy.

        It’s not as though she didn’t stay married to advance her political career, and she’s subservient to a lot of men who are donors to her campaign fund. She’s put herself in her place already. In her case “harpy” seems to be the mot juste. The question to my mind is: “What does she have to do to be described as a ‘harpy’ that she hasn’t done already?”

        I agree that “battle-axe” doesn’t accurately describe Hillary; it is far to complimentary.

        And I think “harpy” is a very good word that could be accurately applied to a lot of male politicians because “hawk” is far too complimentary.

      • Philemon on August 24, 2014, 9:40 pm

        tree, I know you mean well, but calling Hillary Clinton a “harpy”, which she undoubtedly is, ranks low on my scales of injustices, when because of her brand of politics, Israel is bombing Gaza with impunity.

      • seanmcbride on August 24, 2014, 10:55 pm


        I know *many* women who use derogatory gender-based terms for both men and women when the terms fit like a glove, when they are appropriate and applied with pinpoint precision.

        I wish you luck in your efforts to police this common language behavior according to your ideological criteria, but you will be facing an uphill battle. Many of us appreciate the power of the English language as an expressive tool and its ability to hit many colorful notes.

        Derogatory terms for males and females are not innately sexist — *some* individual males and females do in fact exhibit familiar negative characteristics for their respective genders.

        I wish you had more to say about the role of female neocon warmongers in the Democratic Party who have used feminism as a tool to acquire political power. This strikes me as an important issue — arguably the most important issue concerning Hillary Clinton. We should bear down hard on it — dissect liberal Zionists and feminist Zionists as two aspects of a single phenomenon. We need to try to strip away the automatic unthinking support of many women for Hillary Clinton.

      • tree on August 25, 2014, 12:08 am

        And I think “harpy” is a very good word that could be accurately applied to a lot of male politicians because “hawk” is far too complimentary.

        Except it can’t because it is exclusively applied to women, so it would still be demeaning to women even if used against a male.

        -a rapacious monster described as having a woman’s head and body and a bird’s wings and claws or depicted as a bird of prey with a woman’s face
        -a grasping, unpleasant woman.

        Which is my point exactly.

        Why use a gender slur when there are other words that could be used, and would be used to describe male politicians without demeaning a whole gender? Using the term to refer to male politicians doesn’t help because the word refers to women only. It would be like calling a man the “c” word, which is still demeaning to women when it is used to describe a particular male.

        I agree that “battle-axe” doesn’t accurately describe Hillary; it is far to complimentary.

        I’ve NEVER seen the term “battleaxe” used to describe a woman in a “complimentary” way. It’s never used that way as far as I know. Its a gender based slur, used to refer negatively to an older aggressive woman with strong opinions.

        tree, I know you mean well, but calling Hillary Clinton a “harpy”, which she undoubtedly is, ranks low on my scales of injustices, when because of her brand of politics, Israel is bombing Gaza with impunity.

        This sounds like whataboutery to me. Is the world really so limited that one can’t complain about slurs being used against women in general because Israel is committing war crimes in Israel with the acquiescence of the vast majority of American politicians, including Clinton and Obama and most other Democrats? There are a lot of things in our society to complain about, none of them as atrocious as what is happening to the people of Gaza, but NOT complaining about those other things won’t help the Palestinians either. Its not an either/or situation.

      • ritzl on August 25, 2014, 3:18 am

        FWIW, tree, I think you’re spot on about this. I tried to think of a similar name(s) for males and couldn’t come with any so specifically derogatory. Even if there were, no one would use them which is probably also a part of the problem. And a third part of the general problem is the assumption that women are somehow going against “their” virtuous true “nature” to be warmongers, therefore the special terms for that underlying and condescending assumption of self-betrayal.

        Interesting discussion.

      • tree on August 25, 2014, 3:29 am

        Thanks ritzl. Good points.

      • seafoid on August 25, 2014, 7:34 am

        I think Mrs Clinton is a heartless bastard, not too far off where Cheney is. But it doesn’t sound right. She’s going to trade on her femininity to get the big job and launch wars in which lots of brown people die.
        Maybe just call her a nightmare.

  13. Bandolero on August 23, 2014, 12:53 pm

    I don’t think that the support for Israel’s massacre in Gaza costs Hillary the White House.

    As things develop in the U.S. – at least from what I see from here – I suspect the next U.S. president will likely by a Republican.

    • seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 1:04 pm


      “Hillary Wallops All Republicans, Elizabeth Warren Doesn’t”

      Our new Zogby Analytics poll shows Mrs. Clinton comfortably leading all the Republican big names we submitted for testing. The new poll, conducted online August 13-15 among 1,223 likely voters nationwide, shows Mrs. Clinton shooting each GOP duck in a row.

      She beats former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 49% to 36%; Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 50% to 34%; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 47% to 35%; former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney 50% to 35%; former Arkansas Governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee 49% to 33%; and Florida Senator Marco Rubio 51% to 29%. As we can see, she hovers around the 50% mark against each challenger while none of her putative opponents receives 40%.

      Meanwhile, Ms. Warren runs about even with all of the GOP candidates: 34% to 36% against Bush; 34% to 35% against Paul; 34% to 37% vs. Christie; 36% to 38% against Romney: 35% to 33% vs. Huckabee; and 35% to 31% against Rubio.

      • Abierno on August 23, 2014, 4:10 pm

        Given the changing demographics of the US, one has to be very careful about analytics. Also, for all intents and purposes Elizabeth Warren has stated that she is not running. Consider – Ms. Clinton has been running at full speed since she left the state department with extensive assistance from Mr. Clinton (asset/liability?) and their data bases and their well-oiled political machine. So its not surprising that in a small poll she out polls all other democrats. It will be a long two years to 2016 – particularly with Europe economically unstable and further destabilized by US Russian sanctions, and energy destabilization across the US, Middle East and Europe. The middle east is a tinder box – and there are not going to be US brokered solutions to the Gaza crisis, the ISIS crisis and then the internal crises in Israel (see Haraatz today re
        youth are young, Jewish and glory in their racial superiority). Then, the wild card is the persistent rumor that Mossad/CIA are responsible for ISIS. All of these problems germinated in the Clinton state department.
        This would suggest a tempered response to Ukrainian, Syrian and Gaza events as opposed to her full-throated war mongering.
        This country is broke, unable to provide jobs, medical or mental health for its veterans and finally, war weary. Ms. Clinton is on the wrong side of all these issues. Ferguson events tell us that domestic and foreign policy are merging. When gas is $15 a gallon at the pump, they will be enmeshed.
        Finally, Ms. Clinton is running as though it were 2008 – bad mistake.
        Look at the Gallup poll that Phil Weiss has cited and then recognize that the demographics of this country have shifted – the mean age of Caucasian males and femaless is 37.7, Hispanic 24 and non Hispanic persons of color (Asian etc. 30.2). This is not the demographic that gets its news from the mainstream media. These are also the demographics most against our current Israel-o-centric foreign policy decisions, particularly our unfettered military and economic support for Israel which is apprised at $149 billion over the lifetime of the country.

      • chris_k on August 23, 2014, 4:38 pm

        Looking at early polls, Guiliani was a shoo-in in 2008. They reflect name recognition. How Liz Warren presents herself can make up this difference quickly. The early primary voters will hear about all the candidates exhaustively.

      • Shingo on August 23, 2014, 10:13 pm

        How Liz Warren presents herself can make up this difference quickly

        The trouble is that Warren is already ducking questions about Gaza, so she may turn into a Barbara Boxer just as quickly.

      • seanmcbride on August 23, 2014, 10:31 pm


        The trouble is that Warren is already ducking questions about Gaza, so she may turn into a Barbara Boxer just as quickly.

        There is not the slightest chance that Elizabeth Warren will dare to challenge the Israeli government — the Israel lobby owns and controls the Democratic Party — and could break her just like that.

      • lysias on August 23, 2014, 5:53 pm

        That’s name recognition at work. Killary is better known than the Republican possibilities. Warren, OTOH, is not better known.

        The name recognition advantage disappears quickly once a real campaign gets going.

      • Bandolero on August 24, 2014, 5:07 pm


        Thanks for that information. It sounds strange to me. From what I see most Americans are quite dissatisfied with the current Democrat government. The economy seems not to get back on track, health care far less popular than envisioned and other great domestic advancements not in sight. So my understanding is that in the 2016 elections U.S. people will likely vote for change, voting the Democrats out and Republicans in. Yet, as you point out, Hillary seems to be seen as a bright light in all the mess. I wonder why. She was part of that Democratic government.

        Foreign policy I generally expect to be no decisive factor in the elections. The only thing where it may count is for Hillary personally, as her record as successful or unsuccessful foreign policy manager may be seen as a hint on how well or bad she will manage domestic issues.

        When Hillary’s foreign policy is scrutinized I expect Libya to become a major topic. The war on Libya was her baby and she was very happy with the success of having managed to get Gaddafi killed in a most cruel way. But the resulting situation in Libya and Northern Africa is a mess which I hardly expect to get cleaned up before 2016. And I guess this mess will stick to Hillary.

        From a campaign point, I’m looking forward to see the video being embedded in a campaign video of Hillary’s opponents:

        Presented in the right way, I cannot imagine that many people will vote for Hillary after watching this. She sounds just bloodthirsty and mad – and given the mess she caused in Libya, she looks also stupid.

      • just on August 24, 2014, 5:17 pm

        You’re right– it should be shown often and in the proper context. It’s reminiscent of this video (missing the wicked laughter of course):

    • Pippilin on August 23, 2014, 1:20 pm

      I’d vote for Rand Paul if his administration made his dad chief foreign policy advisor!

  14. just on August 23, 2014, 12:56 pm

    I pushed (hard) for Obama over Hillary EXPRESSLY because of her foreign policy.

    I still think it is our number one priority. With that in mind, I can’t see anyone worthy of becoming President, much less Congresspeople.

  15. on August 23, 2014, 12:59 pm

    I agree with you but……… In previous years I have contributed a lot of money to the Democrats so I get dozens of emails every day from the Democrat Party asking for more money. Many of these emails come from people with Jewish names like Israel, Franken and Debby Wasserman Shultz etc and I know that most of them are Jews and that they support Israel more than I do. Do you think that they will abandon Mrs. Clinton because she supports Netanyahu ? I tend to think that the Domocratic party is dominated by liberal Zionists who are blind to Israeli excesses and who will support Israel and Mrs. Clinton no matter what we write in Mondoweiss. Am I deluded ?

    • DaBakr on August 24, 2014, 9:57 pm

      while I get your point you shpuld know that A) Israel, Shultz are as often as not NON Jewish names. B) Even Franken-spelled in various ways is also not really a ‘Jewish’ name. C) Wasserman is mostly a Jewsih name but even that, not always considering its meaning is non-denominational.

  16. seafoid on August 23, 2014, 1:03 pm


    You remind me a bit of Harry Dent, who has predicted 12 out of the last 2 recessions.
    Israel is doomed but not just yet.

  17. ziusudra on August 23, 2014, 1:09 pm

    Greetings Phil Weiss,
    I enjoy all of your reporting.
    …… Liberal Zionism….
    Is there an absolute defination of said term?
    Liberal combined with an ideology?
    Why can’t they just be liberal US Jews ?
    Here in Germany in parlamentarian Government:
    The State pays for campaigns and the Parties pick
    the Candidates.
    Our US, no funds, no candidacy in constitutional
    democracy in the last bastion of Capitalism.
    PS the last President we had with Menschkeit was
    Teddy Roosevelt, who grab Vanderbilt, Rockafeller,
    JP Morgan and Carnegie by the monopolizing,
    stiffling capitalistic collar & showed them the servant’s
    exit! Now in today’s Banking & Corporation controlled
    world, all americans must voice the haunting saying of our
    African Americans: It don’t matter who you vote for!
    PPS Still, i’m hoping, you ‘be’ right that she won’t get in.

    • lysias on August 23, 2014, 5:55 pm

      TR was not the last President with Menschlichkeit. FDR was a Mensch. JFK was a Mensch. Jimmy Carter was a Mensch.

      • just on August 23, 2014, 6:02 pm

        Agreed, lysias.

      • ziusudra on August 25, 2014, 12:14 am

        Greetings Lysias,
        ……All die Presidenten mit Menschlichkeit…
        No negation from me, Lysias. Tks for extending
        my thoughts.
        PS Please give Carter his life back, he’s still
        with us: Carter ‘ist’ ein Mensch.

  18. annie on August 23, 2014, 1:16 pm

    you called it phil, i couldn’t agree more. super kudos, another grrrreat post.

  19. Les on August 23, 2014, 2:02 pm

    Much will depend on our mainstream media whose owners are disproportionately Jewish, and, vastly more important, 100% in support of Israel no matter what Israel does. The degree to which that media gives serious (and regular) coverage to America’s Jewish opponents of the doings of the zionist state will determine the outcome Phil wants.

  20. wondering jew on August 23, 2014, 2:29 pm

    if Gaza remains in its current state: no cease fire, a war of attrition, and that leads to a further breakdown in the region. if Isis resolves itself somehow so that Gaza is the primary problem of the region, then Phil’s prediction MIGHT come true.

    There is no way of predicting what will happen as far as Gaza is concerned. But ISIS will not resolve itself and ISIS will be the primary problem of the region, so Phil’s prediction will not come true.

    Further Obama defeated Clinton primarily because he was (going to be) the first black President. He had an exciting narrative that described how his election would change (save) the country and the world. Such a narrative does not accompany any of the potential democratic candidates in 2016. Thus this prediction: since Clinton lost in 2008 because of Iraq, thus Clinton will lose in 2016 because of Gaza is false, because Clinton lost in 2008 because Obama was exciting and the Iraq vote helped Obama, but was not the major cause.

    The predictions that liberal Zionists and JVP will become a major story in the media is ridiculous, that this is going to take place in the matter of the 24 months until the Democratic convention. Optimism plays a role in helping people, but these predictions are outre. I predict they will not come true.

    This is Phil’s blog: he is allowed to make any predictions he wants. But at the end of the year, there should be an accounting. What were his predictions and how many came true? Will he print an end of the year accounting of his failed predictive powers? I predict not.

    • Justpassingby on August 23, 2014, 2:43 pm


      I agee with all excluding that ISIS is the biggest issue in the region, imo its just one of problems.

    • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 2:44 pm

      Israel can’t afford a war of attrition, Yonah. The economy is already slowing down and the bank of Israel has limited interest rate leverage given the low level of interest rates. If 95% of Israeli jews support the carnage it means only 5% of Israeli jews understand economics and what determines their standard of living.

      • Kathryn on August 23, 2014, 3:11 pm

        Please correct me if I am wrong but your comment makes it sound like Israel should stop this massacre only because of its economic impacts, not because of what is being done to Palestinians, and it being against International Laws, and human rights.

    • just on August 23, 2014, 2:46 pm

      good grief.

      Israel is the “primary problem of the region”– you can’t run away or blame it on others.

      • wondering jew on August 23, 2014, 3:54 pm

        just- I was referring to the perception of the voters in the democratic primaries.

      • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 4:21 pm

        It seems strange that ISIS crops up as “the biggest problem in the Middle East” just as the democratic primary season is about to start.
        ISIS was nowhere 2 years ago.

      • Walid on August 24, 2014, 12:37 am

        “ISIS was nowhere 2 years ago.”

        It’s the new OBL. An American election season always need one.

      • Pixel on August 24, 2014, 2:54 am

        (Walid, no reply button under your comment so I’m just easin’ on down the road with you and Seafoid here.)

        Maybe a 2 for 1…

        ISIS > White House Says Foley Beheading a Terrorist Attack Against U.S. > Syria in the crosshairs.> 2. Elections

      • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 4:21 pm

        ISIS the biggest problem in the Middle East just as the dem primaries start. Que sorpresa.

        And here’s a tikkun olam update- 2 mothers explain what Israel’s water policy in Gaza means to their kids

        starts at 2.30

      • Walid on August 24, 2014, 3:13 am

        Pixel, about the 2 for 1, I don’t think so. The US has just realized that its creation has become a runaway train and has a hand outstretched to both Iran and Syria for their help in trying to stop it. Foley was IS’ signal to the US that it doesn’t have any friends and that it doesn’t want any either.

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 3:45 am


        “The US has just realized that its creation has become a runaway train and has a hand outstretched to both Iran and Syria for their help in trying to stop it”

        Never going back. Wrong way on a one way track.

        I’m sure Iran and Syria can be persuaded to help for the right price.
        Would Syria ask for the Golan back ?

        The big picture is Sunni leverage and Israel’s regional policing role exposed as a fraud.

        The US needs Israel for er Middle East security, per Oren and the rest of the bots. Why doesn’t the IDF take on ISIS ? Because you can’t fight a war where the locals hate you and that goes for basically all of the Middle East as far as Israel is concerned.

      • Citizen on August 24, 2014, 5:06 am
      • Walid on August 24, 2014, 8:25 am

        seafoid, notice how Saudia and the rest of the Gulfies along with Israel are keeping silent about the IS problem. They are probably hoping that IS would take out Syria and Iran before the US catches up with it and unplugs its motor. A good many of Iraq’s former Baathist military officers that had been fired by Paul Bremer have now joined the ranks of IS and are giving it a semblance of a structured military fighting force. What else did the US do wrong in Iraq? Let me count the ways…

      • Donald on August 23, 2014, 5:05 pm

        “Israel is the “primary problem of the region”– you can’t run away or blame it on others.”

        Israel is the primary problem for Palestinians and in the long run, even for Israelis if they don’t come to their senses. I’m not clear on how Israel is the primary problem for people in Iraq or Syria or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or various other places.

      • just on August 23, 2014, 5:52 pm

        The root cause is our tragic hypocrisy wrt Israel. Both Israel and the US seek regional hegemony. We play fast and loose with the truth, with people’s lives, and with resources that are not ours. We overthrow leaders after they’ve worn out their usefulness, we condone assassinations, we both torture, we create war and enemies. In short, we create MAYHEM. The populations that observe from our lowly positions are NOT stupid.

        Many ‘groups’ cite this hypocrisy as their raison d’etre. We need to remove that.

        Neither Israel nor the US nor some in the EU are behaving as true paragons of good nor democracies.

        Israel, as it has chosen to ‘evolve’, is a huge problem. We are responsible for that– big time! Somebody that we mutually agree not to like in the region is, all of a sudden, our enemy and a tyrant and terrorist.

        It is insane.

        P.S. Israel is trying like mad to stop normalization of our relationship with Iran.

      • just on August 23, 2014, 7:49 pm

        I should have made my initial statement more clear.

        It is Israel/US complicity and impunity that is the problem in the region.

        ‘Cui bono?’ is what I ask myself when massacres/genocides/ethnic cleansing take place and the murderers are never held accountable by self- proclaimed moral nations/states. And then I ask myself, why not?

      • Walid on August 24, 2014, 1:46 am

        just, the free pass issued in favour of Israel is not sole doing of the US, Arab leaders too play a major role in it and you have to wonder which of the two the US is trying hardest to please. From the way most leaders act and react, you’d think that it’s the Palestinians that are the irritant. The distinction between the warm sympathy felt for the Palestinians by the Arab people in general and what their leaders feel is fuzzy but to blame mostly if not only the US is not accurate.

      • Citizen on August 24, 2014, 4:15 am

        Snowden documents revealed US/Brit/Mossad created ISIS on theory” a hornet’s nest “on Israel’s border is best for continued Israeli hegemony in the region. Facts:

        1) ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi was once a super-high level prisoner of the US government. Despite the fact that the US had offered a ten million dollar reward for him, the Obama regime ordered his release in 2009.

        2) The Obama regime, with major support from Senate neo-cons John McCain and Lindsey Graham, gave hundreds of millions in military aid to Sunni Jihadists in Syria. Thousands of individuals receiving US aid are now members of ISIS. In fact, ISIS has even posted pictures of ISIS fighters with US Senator John McCain on the internet.

        3) Israel has directly aided Sunni Jihadists in Syria by bombing Syrian military assets during Jihadist attacks.

        4) The Israeli Prime Minister has reacted to the ISIS spearheaded Sunni/Shia Civil War in Iraq with borderline glee. The president of Israel has also suggested that a Sunni/Shia war is beneficial to the future of Israel.

        5) The US and Britiain provided Sunni Jihadists with Toyota trucks in Syria. When, an army of ISIS fighters rolled over the Syria/Iraq border it looked like a commercial for Toyota.

      • libra on August 23, 2014, 6:10 pm

        Donald: I’m not clear on how Israel is the primary problem for people in Iraq…

        Then pay attention next time Phil writes about the neocon planners of the Iraq War.

      • Pixel on August 23, 2014, 11:50 pm

        oooops …watch out, libra.

        you’re getting pretty close to the edge of the rabbit hole.

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 9:29 am

        “I’m not clear on how Israel is the primary problem for people in Iraq or Syria or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or various other places.”

        I think for Syria and Egypt, Israel’s warmongering led to the focus on militarization in both societies, to the detriment of progress.
        Compare Egypt to say Argentina. Why does Argentina have a civilian government now? Why will Egypt never have a civilian government ?

      • Walid on August 24, 2014, 10:07 am

        Militarization in Egypt and Syria wasn’t only for Israel’s sake, it also served to keep the natives at bay. The UAE and Saudia spend a hundred billions on arms when they don’t have an enemy in the world; why then, they surely have no intention of using them to attack Israel or each other.

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 4:09 pm

        It’s also linked to oil and the need for a divided Levant/ Arabia/Egypt – comparing the region to South East Asia and the freedom Malaysia had to develop is interesting. India was given independence with a population of 500million but Levant/Arabia/Egypt was divided into many countries – also divide and rule. Each small country has a small elite even though the language of all is shared.
        The region is run for outsiders and will be as long as there is oil and as long as Israel exists. Kida, ya’ni

    • Donald on August 23, 2014, 5:03 pm

      “The predictions that liberal Zionists and JVP will become a major story in the media is ridiculous, that this is going to take place in the matter of the 24 months until the Democratic convention. Optimism plays a role in helping people, but these predictions are outre. ”

      I think you’re probably right.

      “But at the end of the year, there should be an accounting. What were his predictions and how many came true?”

      No need for that, IMO at least. Phil runs a great blog with a great many useful and interesting posts, but he’s always been a bit of cheerleader who lets his optimism run away with him when he makes predictions. Or that’s my impression.

      • tree on August 23, 2014, 9:27 pm

        Phil runs a great blog with a great many useful and interesting posts, but he’s always been a bit of cheerleader who lets his optimism run away with him when he makes predictions.

        I’d agree. Phil is a bit of a Pollyanna on the subject. The glass isn’t just half -full for him. He’s a “Gee, the glass is nearly full!” kind of guy. He’s the little boy shoveling through the massive pile of horse manure looking for the pony that surely must be underneath there somewhere. Its kind of endearing in a way.

      • Pixel on August 23, 2014, 11:52 pm

        nah, he’s a realist who just sees things first.

      • Mooser on August 24, 2014, 11:19 am

        “The glass isn’t just half -full for him. He’s a “Gee, the glass is nearly full!” kind of guy. “

        As a journalist, why would Phil want to announce in his blog that he is shut off from, or won’t hear any particular point of view?

    • Justpassingby on August 24, 2014, 4:11 am


      I agee with all excluding that ISIS is the biggest issue in the region, imo its just one of problems.

  21. Kathryn on August 23, 2014, 3:08 pm

    Unfortunately Canadian politics is following in lock-step with the Israeli lobby here as well. There is not ONE party that has not given Israel complete 1000% support for everything they do….want to kill thousands of Palestinians go for it. There is an Federal election here next year and NONE of the parties merit support from anyone concerned about peace and justice in Palestine and in this world.

  22. biorabbi on August 23, 2014, 3:10 pm

    Progressives fighting over Gaza, taking down Hillary.

    Is this a pass the popcorn moment?

  23. michelle on August 23, 2014, 3:11 pm

    picture H. Clinton at the Israel hospital
    where the handful of Gaza victims are as always
    imprisoned she’s at the bedside of one of the underfed
    children and in all seriousness she is telling that child
    (who has never experienced justice freedom or true safety)
    that the fault of the issue is hers (the childs)
    and outside the door to the childs ward is a
    long line of people to hammer the point home
    (we all know who’s in that line)
    seems like it’s easy to lie when you’re free to walk away
    G-d Bless the children

    • just on August 23, 2014, 5:13 pm

      St. Joseph’s Hospital is in East Jerusalem, in Sheikh Jarrah– not Israel.

      From wiki:

      ‘Sheikh Jarrah (Arabic: الشيخ جراح‎, Hebrew: שייח’ ג’ראח‎) is a predominantly Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem, 2 kilometers north of the Old City, on the road to Mount Scopus.[1][2] It received its name from the 13th-century tomb of Sheikh Jarrah, a physician of Saladin, located within its vicinity. The modern neighborhood was founded in 1865 and gradually became a residential center of Jerusalem’s Muslim elite, particularly the al-Husayni family. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, it straddled the no-man’s land area between Jordanian-held East Jerusalem and Israeli-held West Jerusalem until the neighborhood was occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. It is currently the center of a number of property disputes between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis.

      The St. Joseph’s French Hospital is situated across the street from St John of Jerusalem Eye Hospital and is run by a French Catholic charity. It is a 73-bed hospital with three main operating theaters, coronary care unit, X-ray, laboratory facilities, and outpatient clinic. Facilities in internal medicine, surgery, neurosurgery, E.N.T., pediatric surgery and orthopedics.[35]’

      As for Hillary…or John Kerry or anybody– I don’t think that they ‘visit’ in that way, or ‘those’ people…

      “According to the State Department, the most-traveled Secretary of State in history visited 112 countries during her four-year tenure, traversing 956,733 miles — enough to span the globe more than 38 times — and spending 401 total days on the road. Her dizzying world tour shattered the previous record of countries visited by Secretaries of State, held by Madeline Albright, who saw 98 different nations from 1997 to 2001. It was enough to earn Clinton the moniker “Secretary of Schlep” by Foreign Policy, while The Atlantic dubbed her the “George Clooney of global affairs.”

      So where exactly did Clinton go? She broke Albright’s record when she traveled to Finland, hit the 100-country mark in Latvia, and famously danced up a storm in South Africa.”

      Everybody makes the trip to Israel. Which SOS has made a trip to Gaza?

      More from wiki:

      “On February 19, 2009, Ellison and fellow Representative Brian Baird visited Gaza to view firsthand the destruction from the Gaza War and to meet with international and local relief agencies, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. This visit, which Ellison and Baird say did not have the official sanction of the Obama Administration, was the first time any U.S. government official had entered Gaza in more than three years.[66] Ellison had this to say about what he saw:
      “ The stories about the children affected me the most. No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here.[67] ”

      The following day, Ellison and Baird visited the Israeli towns of Sderot and Ashkelon, which were the targets of numerous Qassam rocket attacks, repeatedly launched from within the Gaza strip.[67]”

      Phil told us that Ned Lamont went to Gaza, but he’s not a politician anymore…just a good man.

      • michelle on August 23, 2014, 9:15 pm

        noooooooo ……..
        another mistake and i already
        made too many today
        where’s the corner and how long
        do i have to stay there …. oh and
        can i take my lap top
        really though, ty Just,
        the facts/truth that’s for me
        knowledge is power
        hope your day was swell
        G-d Bless

      • just on August 24, 2014, 8:42 am

        Thank you for your good wishes michelle. I believe that it is really important that those of us outside of the bombing coordinates remember that Jerusalem ‘belongs’ to nobody and everybody. Israel wants it all.

        St. Joseph Hospital is Catholic and is Palestinian. The fact that Israel only allows a very few of the horrifically wounded in to cared for @ St. Joseph’s says nothing about Israeli ‘humanity’. Rather, it speaks volumes about their odious OCCUPATION.

      • just on August 24, 2014, 8:56 am

        I meant to write ‘to be cared for’…

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 8:56 am

        “Rather, it speaks volumes about their odious OCCUPATION.”
        “When Israelis and Palestinians appear fated to fight more frequently and with ever-bloodier consequences, and when peace initiatives seem to be utopian pipe-dreams doomed to fail, the liberal Zionist faces something like an existential crisis. For if there is no prospect of two states, then liberal Zionists will have to do something they resist with all their might. They will have to decide which of their political identities matters more, whether they are first a liberal or first a Zionist. And that is a choice they don’t want to make. ”

        MJR has already decided, sort of .

        Another angle
        ” Hassan, who has worked at the mental health center since 1991, spoke a lot in our conversation about the meaning of psychological treatment during periods of unrelenting and continuing trauma. “I came to the conclusion that such treatment is not ethical,” he said. “For 23 years, I have been trying to help children living in trauma, but there is no guarantee that they will not be affected again. It’s as if I am just preparing them to deal with something worse. You cannot provide true psychological treatment when the patients have no protection, no guarantee that it won’t happen again and soon, when what causes trauma never ends,” he said.
        “What is at issue here is a lot more than individual, separate cases,” he continued. “Even when there is no war, there is no stability in the Gaza Strip, and in a situation like this, how can psychological treatment help? One political decision on Israel’s part — lifting the blockade — could do a lot more good than all of the psychological treatment performed in Gaza and all of the quantities of money invested in them. The long-standing blockade limits our field of vision, our broader outlook, our creativity. The occupation is not only of land. The blockade is not just of goods, objects. The occupation is also cognitive, of one’s will, of feelings and thoughts. The siege is also over the ability to hope.” ”

      • just on August 24, 2014, 9:31 am

        Thank you, seafoid.

        You always connect the dots.

        I have questions that has no ‘accepted’ answers yet: Why does Israel do misery so well? Why do we embrace and nurture it?

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 9:48 am


        I have a question about Freedland’s choice. Say you have to choose between Zionism and liberalism – can Zionism still be Jewish ? And what would be the point of Judaism then ?

      • michelle on August 24, 2014, 10:58 am

        @ Just
        my post(s) were flip
        and the one to you should not have been
        you are a true heart as am i and most here
        HRC our leaders the future of our government
        many world leaders and places/people like Israel
        so much suffering that need not be
        so much unfairness for nothing worth so much as
        one drop of lifes blood
        the cold unkindness i thought was only in stories of
        times past ….
        so often i am overwhelmed just reading from this ‘site’
        and sometimes i flip before i take my broken heart to
        G-d to mend so i can pray for and bear witness to
        these latest inhumane acts of mankind …. and watch
        as the glimmer of hope grows bigger and humanity
        gathers together and cries ‘enough’
        G-d Bless You ‘Just’

      • just on August 24, 2014, 12:18 pm


        “I have a question about Freedland’s choice. Say you have to choose between Zionism and liberalism – can Zionism still be Jewish ? And what would be the point of Judaism then ?”

        Zionism is not, and never was, liberal. It really has little in common with Judaism. The two need a swift and everlasting divorce, preceded by and with a restraining order.

      • just on August 24, 2014, 12:22 pm

        @ michelle

        ;}} It’s all good when we work for justice.

      • wondering jew on August 24, 2014, 1:08 pm

        Regarding the divorce between Judaism/Jewishness and Zionism that will take place. let’s do a thought experiment. in 50 years, one man one vote is granted in Palestine. In the next 50 years after that (and continuing a trend that will start before 50 years from now) the Jewish population of “Palestine” is reduced by 75%. Thus 100 years from now the Jewish population in Palestine will plateau and achieve stability.

        100 years later, (200 years from now, 150 years after one man one vote), what will the Jewish thinkers say about the Zionist experiment/enterprise?

        The birth of Zionism in the ferment of Jew hatred in Europe will still play a prominent part in the justification of Zionism. Under the pressure of a hatred that was not illusory but in fact ended up manifesting far worse than even the most dire prophets, the Jews of 200 years from now will accept the desire of Jews to establish a self determined territory in the face of such a coming storm.

        The manifestations of Zionism in its actuality: the nakba specifically will be rejected as cruelty. Let us assume that the trend towards Jews moving to America will continue and that American domestic tranquility does not find its path to dystopia but maintains the current trajectory. Then the american experience of pluralism versus the Zionist Jewish state experiment- will be viewed by Jewish thinkers as a defeat of the Zionist concept and the triumph of the American concept. Jewish statehood will be viewed (with the exception of remarkable times as were those between 1881 and 1945) as anachronistic as animal sacrifices.

        but let us introduce Pew and its reported trends. The vast majority of today’s Jews and half Jews will “disappear” (as in transform into 1/8th Jews to 1/64th Jews.)
        The orthodox proportion of American Jewry will be large. The neturei karta’s “do not hurry the end” philosophy will be adopted by “Torah” Jews at large. Also realize that the largest proportion of the Jews who remain in Israel will be Orthodox and nonZionist Orthodox at that. The study of Torah that has created the great yeshivas of Jerusalem and Bnei Brak will be the bastions that nearly a majority of the Jews remaining in Israel in 200 years will view as their centers of being. They will view the Zionist experiment as a passing phase, but the eternity of Torah study in Jerusalem and in the land as a very important manifestation of the continuity of the Jewish people.

      • wondering jew on August 24, 2014, 1:35 pm

        Further thoughts about 200 years from now. Zionist Jews, particularly Zionist Orthodox Jews will disguise themselves as ultra Orthodox nonZionist Jews. How will the palestinian rulers root out these renegades? Don’t know.

        Also, what kind of interaction between the Orthodox Jews of America and the small group of those who identify as Jews who are not ultra Orthodox.

        (There will remain a community of Zionist Orthodox as well, but they will be much smaller than the nonZionist Orthodox. The US administration will consider these as dangerous as Al Qaeda, because stability in the world will depend on the suppression of these Zionists.)

      • just on August 24, 2014, 2:31 pm

        With all due respect yonah– I don’t understand what you are trying to teach me.

        I’ve read and re- read your comments, and I remain in the dark.

      • Mooser on August 24, 2014, 2:44 pm

        Just, I’ve been telling, all that standing in the corner muttering is not attractive, but he will do it.

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 3:53 pm

        @ Yonah

        50 years for one woman one vote is deluded, with all due respect.
        Climate change is already reducing the availability of water in the levant.
        Things will be very difficult by 2025.
        Sanctions on Israel may have already started by then.
        Those bastions of yeshiva thinking etc- how are they going to be funded when the thinkers start leaving Israel ? It has prolly started already.

      • just on August 24, 2014, 4:28 pm

        Thanks Mooser! I still don’t understand him, but feel better about it.

        I prefer to deal in the present.

      • libra on August 24, 2014, 7:47 pm

        yonah fredman: Further thoughts about 200 years from now….

        yonah, surely no one since Nostradamus has peered so presciently into the future as your good self?

  24. tommy on August 23, 2014, 3:30 pm

    When the oppressed teach us how to realize our humanity, the political strategies of liberal toadies fail to rally their base. Hopefully that prevents Sec. Mrs. Clinton from winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

  25. surewin on August 23, 2014, 3:33 pm

    Phil, much of what you say in this piece is true and encouraging, in my view. But with your prediction you are indeed out on a limb, and that limb is probably going to break.

    In 2008 there was an alternative candidate to Hillary who was a superb campaigner and a member of a disenfranchised group. He had obviously been groomed for the Presidency for many years, possibly going as far back as his adolescence. He gave the convention keynote address in 2004.

    Shortly after the New Hampshire primary, the media, including the liberal organs, started spinning things in Obama’s favor. I don’t think this could have been because there was doubt as to whether Hillary would win the general election, in light of GW Bush, Cheney, and the financial crisis which was already getting underway. I could go on about the machinations of 2008 and the people who were probably behind them, but I’ll save it for another time and place.

    The collective psychology now is that it’s time for a woman. We’ve had a “black” man (he’s exactly half-black, but we see him as black), with the middle name “Hussein”. I find it hard to imagine any candidate other than Barack Obama who could have stopped Hillary in 2008 (with, as I’ve suggested, a lot of help behind the scenes).

    What about other disenfranchised or minority groups? A Hispanic President? Probably soon, but not before a woman. A Jew? An open gay or lesbian? Not before a woman.

    But perhaps the weakest part of your argument, Phil, is the question which Democratic candidate is going to take the nomination away from Hillary. The party has not cultivated another woman who is now analogous to Obama in 2008. Not Elizabeth Warren, not Kirsten Gillibrand. There isn’t one. The 2012 keynote address was given by Julian Castro, who is now 39 years old and was the mayor of San Antonio, Texas for six years. He is obviously being groomed to be a running mate first. Maybe Hillary’s, but that’s not at all certain.

    The only way to prevent Hillary from getting the nomination is for Joe Biden to inherit the Presidency well before the 2016 primary season. If that happened, he would probably ask her to accept the Vice Presidency and she would probably demur, stating that she will run for President in 2016. Who would win the nomination is hard to predict. In this speculative scenario, perhaps Biden would make Gillibrand his Vice President and his 2016 running mate. Certainly not Elizabeth Warren. I believe that many of the same individuals who orchestrated Obama’s defeat of Hillary in the 2008 primaries have seriously considered this Biden scenario. Whether they would go ahead with it remains to be seen, but we should not expect it to happen until February 2015 at the earliest. Their motives have to do with the first Clinton Presidency, subsequent developments in the world, and the personalities of Hillary and Bill. I’ll leave it at that for now.

    • annie on August 24, 2014, 1:25 am

      He had obviously been groomed for the Presidency for many years, possibly going as far back as his adolescence.

      obviously? any supporting links?

      The collective psychology now is that it’s time for a woman.

      i’m part of the collective and that’s not myobservation

      • surewin on August 24, 2014, 3:23 am

        Annie, in 2008 the best evidence that Obama had been groomed for the Presidency that most people knew about was the fact that he had given the keynote address at the convention in 2004, at a time when the only political office he had held was as a state legislator.

        If my wording suggested that it was obvious in 2008 that he had been groomed for the Presidency, I will agree that it was probably not obvious to a lot of people then. But I think it should be obvious by now. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence, which I’d be happy to discuss offline.

        Regarding whether “the collective psychology now is that it’s time for a woman”, it would be more precise to say that there will probably be a constituency of swing voters who will vote according to that notion, and that there will probably be enough of them to decide the election. I think Obama has opened the door, and perhaps the floodgates, to women and minority Presidents.

      • annie on August 24, 2014, 11:54 am

        obviously..groomed for the Presidency ….possibly going as far back as his adolescence…circumstantial evidence, which I’d be happy to discuss offline.

        that’s ok.

      • surewin on August 24, 2014, 2:15 pm

        Here are a couple of sources:

        Kreig has 34 five-stars out of 39 reviews. As for Madsen (and anyone), best to deal with his evidence rather than with him, ad hominem.

        Here is a good interview with Kreig:

        I don’t think it was Soviet Communists who groomed Obama, and I don’t think he is a communist at all. He is a factotum of the Democratic Party- Rockefeller-Goldman Sachs network, as opposed to the Republican Party-Bush family-military industrial network. More simply, the globalist-financiers versus the nationalist-militarists. And it’s important to note that the former group, while well-represented by Jews, has lately taken an adversarial line toward the Israeli government and the neocons. This is evidenced by the appointment of Chuck Hagel, the Kerry two-state process, the refusal to invade Syria, and the diplomatic opening to Iran.

        The neocons are in trouble because they made their big shift to the Republican Party during the 1990s and now (1) the Democratic establishment is opposing them, as noted above, and (2) they are dismayed by the Republican field of candidates. Hence the recent Romney name-dropping, which smacks of panic.

      • annie on August 24, 2014, 12:20 pm

        citizen, umm, your ‘fellowship of the minds’ link claims this person Tom Fife is a US physicist. but i can’t find any evidence of that online. this link claims he is shadowy, meaning (in the comments):

        By “shadowy” I meant that, although his name comes up again and again, he prefers to remain offstage – few public stunts, and difficult to locate substantial information about.

        so allegedly the fife character comes into the comment section on April 24, 2014 at 3:10 AM with a blogger id of “the fife” and says

        I am very real and alive and well. I have put my email address out on the net from the very beginning for anyone who wishes to contact me. If you or anyone else want to know more details or sort through personal questions, I can be found at [email protected]. Sincerely, Tom Fife

        so i wondered what his blogger id says and i click on it.

        it says nothing except On Blogger since April 2014

        so maybe you could write him and find out where he practices physics, or if he does. do you also think there’s a possibility obama was groomed for the presidency since adolescence?

        frankly, i think this is a tad too la~la land for me.

      • LeaNder on August 24, 2014, 1:30 pm

        Interesting, citizen. It’s not really a new revelation that you seem to have a tooth for conspiracy narratives.

        But what if such a conspiracy tale comes along with Hillary being “the democratic solution” versus “groomed by a secret conspiracy” Obama. What a pity we have no comments by “Sure Win” from 2008.

        “Sure Win”‘s first comment on MW was in an election context too: Obama says Netanyahu’s demands are ‘noise’ and Romney seems to want to ‘start another war’
        Philip Weiss on September 23, 2012

        scoll down to the first comment, and check who responds:

        surewin says:
        September 23, 2012 at 10:00 pm

        Obama referring to Israel: “They’re one of our closest allies in the region.”

        That way of saying it seems significant, too.

        Kerry says that Israel could wind up being ‘an apartheid state’, Philip Weiss on April 28, 2014>Sure Win says:

        surewin says:
        April 28, 2014 at 2:11 pm

        It’s silly to think, as Norman Finkelstein apparently does, that this round of two-state talks is all about Obama’s and Kerry’s preoccupation with their personal legacies. Since about 2006, a deeper American establishment than the neocon one has reasserted itself. They waited until their new President was re-elected and then launched the current two-state process.

        There are various motives, but my strong sense is that some of the main ones have to do with domestic U.S. politics. I don’t think the ongoing Sheldon Adelson spectacle, for example, is good for the Republicans. Some voters notice it, but more importantly the political class does, and it’s repulsive to most of them.

        It will be interesting to see how Hillary behaves in the meantime. Assuming she runs, I don’t think she’ll reveal much in the way of support for a solution to the conflict before the election, but I think she very much wants the conflict to be resolved.

    • Shingo on August 24, 2014, 1:51 am

      Great post Surewin,

      I agree completely with your summation of 2008 and Obama being groomed before that. I even remember the anticipation of his candidacy and how it electrified the party. They even ran a clever satirical add, where Obama gace a speech to camera that sounded like he was announcing his candidacy only to deliver the punch line at that he was backing the Chicago Bears in the Super Bowl playoffs in 2006. It was clearly a teaser to test the water, but it worked.

  26. joemowrey on August 23, 2014, 3:48 pm

    Phil expects too much intelligence from voters. The patterns are always the same. Fear wins, rationality loses. That’s Hillary’s ticket to the White House.

    IMHO the creation of the Islamic State is an intentional strategic machination of U.S. foreign policy in order to maintain the maximum level of instability in the Middle East in order to maintain U.S. public support for Israel regardless of how bloodthirsty the Zionists become. The more violent and threatening the Islamic State becomes, the less import will be the more “liberal” voices of what Phil considers to be the Democratic base. Fear mongering the American Sheeple is a tried and true election-year tradition. This coming Presidential cycle will be no different. The hotter the situation in the middle east, the more irrationally frightened the Sheeple will be. They will be chomping at the bit to vote for Hillary. The more of a battle ax she is, the better her chances. And those who cant’ bring themselves to be the warmonger type will vote for her because she is a woman.

  27. seafoid on August 23, 2014, 4:42 pm

    I don’t think Janet Yellen’s magic is going to bring the US economy as far as Q4 2015. Stagnation may be well entrenched by then. Hill has no economic policies other than more neoliberalism- ie more money for the 0.01 percent. They really need it. The employed as a percentage of population is back down to levels last seen in the mid 70s. A lot of Americans have given up on the job market. Wages are not rising in any meaningful way for the average punter and retail is suffering. If people don’t have more money in their pockets they can’t spend it and the economy can’t grow.

    This will probably be the number one issue come the election, especially if Wall St crashes and housing prices start falling again.

    So Hill is more likely to fall over finance. As someone she is married to once said “it’s the economy, stupid” .

    • MRW on August 23, 2014, 10:39 pm

      Hillary will fall back on her husband’s lousy economic ideas the instant she’s in trouble. He (Clinton) couldn’t tell the difference between state and federal accounting so he allowed Lew (current Sec Treas) to pass a Balanced Budget Bill in 1997. [The state USES the currency; the federal government ISSUES the currency.] The start of the decline. The Clinton admin caused the 9/2008 crisis, delayed by the dotcom and the housing booms.

      EDIT: As Bloomberg pointed out at the time of the Clinton surplus, the last time the US federal government ran a surplus was 1921-1929. In 225 years, each federal government balanced budget or surplus has been followed by a depression. Seven times.]

    • Pixel on August 24, 2014, 12:00 am


      Janet Yellen’s magic, hmmm…

      Pay No Attention To The [Wo]man Behind The Curtain

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 1:45 am

        The system is in serious trouble.

        This was on the FT site a while ago

        “Surely the lesson emerging from the last six years is that central banks can firefight but they can fix very little.”

        This could also be relevant for Israel :
        ” Barry Posen, a respected academic at MIT, argues in a recent book that if the US were to cut its defence spending from 4.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product America could force its allies to defend themselves and release $75bn a year to help rebuild the nation back at home.* ”

  28. Kay24 on August 23, 2014, 5:01 pm

    Hillary sold her miserable soul to the devil, by openly siding with, and show complete devotion to, Bibi the butcher of Tel Aviv. He is a notorious liar, even acknowledged by other leaders, and she who lusts for power and the Presidency, knew to get to the White House, she MUST publicly agree with the devil, even though he has no credibility in the eyes of the world. I am resigned to the fact that we will as usual end up with yet another President, who dances the hora when Israel calls the tune, time and time again. It is unfortunate that the world’s greatest super power has been corrupted with zionist money and power, and that our political system is poisoned by zionist lobbies.

    • seafoid on August 23, 2014, 5:16 pm

      I think whoever is elected POTUS is going to be a sociopath. Most powerful position in the world, funded by plutocrats, a deluded economic system headed for 4 degree global warming on current settings – what are the chances of an Atticus Finch turning up, honestly ?

      Time for a dose of Trudell

      He talks about being spiritually disconnected from the past, cancers of greed and war, nobody is taking responsibility – that’s where Zionism is at too.

      “No spiritual relationship to their own descendants”

      • just on August 23, 2014, 5:36 pm

        Ah seafoid.

        I have enormous respect for John Trudell.

        Funny you should mention Atticus. I just finished reading ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ last week (for the jillionth time). It restores me, and yet makes my yearning even more acute.

        (I often go to ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ as well.

      • globalconsciousness on August 24, 2014, 9:52 am

        Seafoid, somewhat unrelated to this thread but wanted to thank you for the Christy Moore (for all our languages…) video – some intense searching on MW retrieved it as my 4 year old is now in love with his music- many thanks!

      • seafoid on August 24, 2014, 1:04 pm

        Thanks GC. It’s such a powerful song. Says a lot about Israel and Gaza too.
        And Ferguson. Grown fat on swallowed pride. The scars of the past are slow to disappear

        Here is another Irish song that works with small kids, different style to Christy Moore

      • just on August 24, 2014, 1:51 pm

        Your 4 year old is wise beyond his/her years! Your consciousness deserves much credit, gc.

  29. Dan Crowther on August 23, 2014, 5:43 pm

    The people who saw him give the keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention knew who Barack Obama was in 2006. He was the party darling, he didn’t come out of nowhere. There’s no such person right now, that is both backed by the party big wigs and can tack left of Hillary. If you’re saying a truly insurgent candidate is going to run and beat Hillary, your prediction of her losing in the primary is almost certainly going to be wrong. Hillary loses, but in the general election

    • lysias on August 23, 2014, 6:03 pm

      In which case, the big question is: can the lobby stop Rand Paul from getting the GOP nomination?

      • Dan Crowther on August 23, 2014, 6:20 pm

        Who knows – do you see him being any different on anything of importance (Rand Paul)? I don’t.

      • Kay24 on August 23, 2014, 6:45 pm

        He is yet another devotee of Israel, which was obvious during the massacre of Gaza. He is nowhere like his father when it comes to Israel.

    • surewin on August 24, 2014, 4:02 am

      Dan Crowther, who is going to win the general election?

      It is interesting to see Mitt Romney mentioned in the press several times recently. I think this is AIPAC, et al. I don’t think they trust Jeb. One reason is that the Bush name has been tarnished by the neocons, and Jeb has probably heard all about that from his parents, both of whom are anti-semites. The Bush family won’t be fooled and abused twice, I don’t think, and indeed, someone needs to restore honor to the family name.

      The lobby won’t stand for Rand Paul, nor will the non-Jewish party establishment, so he’s out of the question.

      If they can’t get Romney back in for another run, maybe they’ll support Ted Cruz, who has been saying all the right things, but who really knows about him?

      I suspect that Jeb will find a way to get the nomination. Cruz might do well in the primaries, given the zealotry of primary voters. I’m starting to think that if Bush is the nominee, he will ask Cruz to be his running mate. Bush would sorely like to name John Kasich, so as to have Florida and Ohio covered, but it will be necessary to name Cruz in order to attract a swing constituency, namely Hispanics, to counter Hillary. I haven’t been able to figure out a woman running mate for Bush.

      I don’t know what other Republicans to consider seriously, but I’m open to suggestion.

      • Dan Crowther on August 27, 2014, 9:22 pm

        Not sure who wins – but Clinton is deeply flawed and enough people loathe her that there might be a left third party candidate – or, the libertarians on the right might go all in, which could draw a lot of left libertarians like myself.
        The other thing is: in 2008 it wasn’t widely understood that Bill Clinton was a big part of the Crash, that the deregulation on this watch lead to this. Now, though he’s still popular, in a prolonged campaign, his record is somewhat of a liability.

  30. Krendall Mist on August 23, 2014, 6:57 pm

    ” Jewish youth and liberal Zionists will have calved off the iceberg of pro-Israel support inside the Jewish establishment; they will be a real political bloc that will give a candidate confidence at last to criticize Israel. AIPAC will be a dirty word for a whole lot more people by 2016…”
    So no candidate will have the confidence to merely even “criticize Israel: unless granted permission by the “Jewish establishment?”
    Don’t the goyim, who make up about 98 percent of the US electorate, have any influence here?

  31. Daniel Rich on August 23, 2014, 7:00 pm

    Q: Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza…

    R: Stop scaring the bejesus out of Rotham’s daughter’s in-laws!

  32. ritzl on August 23, 2014, 7:23 pm

    I hope the Greens peel off about 10% of the Democratic vote in 2016. If they keep to their current platform they may just have a chance of doing that. Bye bye, Hillary.

    Gaza/Palestine/Israel:, among other issues that people are really fed up with, like economic justice. (Thanks, tree.)

  33. wondering jew on August 23, 2014, 7:38 pm

    ritzl- what is the best the green party has done until this point in time? Ralph Nader’s 2.74% of 2000. But he had a name. And here you are saying “they just might have a chance of peeling off 10% of the democratic vote?” I’ll bet you seven thousand dollars that they don’t get 5% of the total vote.

  34. Pixel on August 23, 2014, 7:48 pm


  35. JeffB on August 23, 2014, 8:58 pm

    Phil —

    I’ll be happy to take that bet. I think you are making the mistake of double counting. No question non-white, young and liberal correlate strongly with being more anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian. No question being non-white, young and liberal correlate with being a democrat. But… You don’t get to count the same effect twice. Once you’ve selected for democrats you don’t get to select again on demography.

    On Israel among Liberals (i.e excluding moderate and conservative Democrats):

    44% believe Israel went to far
    33% believe Israel was about right
    7% believe Israel didn’t go far enough

    That’s basically an even split. Who was responsible for the violence (among Liberals)
    30% Hamas
    30% Israel
    17% Both

    And in terms of caring about the issue:
    just 32% of Liberals were even following the news regarding Israel / Palestine

    Which is the kinds of numbers you see among Europeans. Those aren’t the kinds of numbers you see on people willing to make this their #1 issue and break definitely in one direction like hostility toward the Iraq war in 2008.

    As far as the young and people of color. Absolutely they are a problem on Israel / Palestine… but they are also vastly less likely to vote in primaries. Before believing that a presidential primary is going to be influenced by this issue I’d like to see at least a few congressional primaries that are influenced.

    Let’s end with a simple question. It costs between $50m-100m to fund a presidential primary in 2012, I’d assume more if anything in 2016. What anti-zionist Democratic candidate would raise 1/5 that amount?

  36. MRW on August 23, 2014, 10:33 pm

    Next prez is going to be Republican unless another up-from-nowhere Dem candidate appears. Obama has been a gigantic disappointment to the under 35-crowd, and the risk of being duped again is high. Rand Paul is a possible choice because the Ron Paulers will think (hope) they are getting his Dad, Libertarians can be persuaded that he will be the lesser of two evils, Paul Jr has been vocal in the Senate trashing Hillary for being a war hawk.

    It’s open season. I doubt Hillary is going to win. But my prediction will be online for everyone to judge.

  37. Palikari on August 23, 2014, 10:54 pm

    Hillary is a liberal but I like her.

    • Citizen on August 24, 2014, 1:47 pm

      You live in Israel, right?
      If not, what do you like about Hillary? On what issues do you think she has the correct approach?

  38. DICKERSON3870 on August 24, 2014, 12:36 am

    RE: “Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza — same way she lost it in Iraq the last time”

    MY COMMENT: I, for one, will not miss having in the White House America’s very own Iron Lady, and her half-baked, Thatcherite ideas.

  39. anthonybellchambers on August 24, 2014, 2:59 am

    Israel’s latest atrocity in Gaza

    As an out-of-control, power-mad, US-supplied, Israeli army blows up residential tower blocks in Gaza in an unprecedented exhibition of undisciplined military action against a civilian population that treats international law as laid down in the Geneva a Conventions with utter contempt, the world waits to see what other atrocities the Israeli government will perpetrate with its American warplanes.

    The United Nations General Assembly should now pass a resolution in emergency session suspending Israel’s membership and authorising a worldwide trade boycott against the Netanyahu government.

  40. NickJOCW on August 24, 2014, 3:55 am

    A broader ‘non-positive’ response may be to her old style combative, over simplistic manner. It came across unattractive, non-statesmanlike, mildly demented, embarrassing, and left me feeling political survival has taken its toll and she’d do better to retire into history.

  41. Accentitude on August 24, 2014, 8:22 am

    This to me clearly defines what Hillary is all about:

    HRC: I’ve thought a lot about this, because you do have a number of conflicts going on right now. As the U.S., as a U.S. official, you have to pay attention to anything that threatens Israel directly, or anything in the larger Middle East that arises out of the Palestinian-Israeli situation. That’s just a given.

    Think about that quote for a moment. Hillary is telling us that the job of a U.S. elected official is to protect Israel’s security and interests. This right here is why Washington is so thoroughly f*cked up.

  42. ohiojoes on August 24, 2014, 9:36 am

    It’s Hillary or a Republican. Obvious to anyone whose not hopped up on, I dunno, “Palocaine”?

  43. on August 24, 2014, 10:00 am

    Headlines this morning are “Hillary Clinton ‘gung-ho’ and a ‘war hawk’, says Rand Paul”. You are right Phil. But it is not just pertaining to the Democrats. RP will run just as far to the left as he has to, in order to beat Hillary. Hopefully he will support Palestine as well as Israel if he is smart.

  44. globalconsciousness on August 24, 2014, 10:04 am
  45. samlebon2306 on August 24, 2014, 12:28 pm

    Wow, I just read two articles on the warmonger Hillary Clinton in just thirty minutes! The other one is on the Guardian:
    Hillary Clinton ‘gung-ho’ and a ‘war hawk’, says Rand Paul.

    She’s a sell out, willing to do anything just to be the first woman POTUS.

  46. Stogumber on August 24, 2014, 12:40 pm

    I wonder how much of this neo-conservatism is “re-enactment”. After 1945, WW II was seen as probably inevitable, but a very unhappy time. Thirty years after, with Studs Terkel, it became “The Good War”. So, no surprise, sixty years after, it seems quite a good idea to re-enact it. Only you need a Hitler in order to become yourself something like a FDR, that’s why there are so much Hitlers now.

    Attractive for a politician, and at least for a part of the population.

    And I think that not only the war tends to be re-enacted, but also the pre-war propaganda. Neocons construct themselves as the upright men who resist appeasement and tend to imitate the techniques of anti-appeasement propaganda of the Thirties – at that time the anti-appeasers won the fight, so why shouldn’t they win now?

  47. michelle on August 24, 2014, 12:43 pm

    we need a leader that will decide with us not for us
    i really though the current POTUS was such a leader
    and maybe he is but he seems to lack the ability to
    overcome those who govern over us as dictators rather
    than as our home and world community leaders
    is Israel ‘Americas’ child born
    on the wrong side of the sheets
    paid for but not cared for
    indulged yet overlooked
    G-d Bless

  48. JeffB on August 24, 2014, 2:27 pm


    I don’t think you can presuppose the fall of Israel and Judaism remaining anything like it is today. Consider the last time Judea fell. The reformed and conservative movement are analogous to Hellenistic Judaism. God fearers are probably analogous to the sort of mixed lineage but people who are likely to make up the majority of America’s younger self identified Jews in 2 generations. We know the God fearers pealed off almost immediately to quasi Jewish sects the various Christian sects, Gnostic sects, the Isis cult… We know that most Hellenists ended up slowly shifting to becoming Christian during the 3 wars.

    Why would you expect Judaism to survive that sort of defeat? The messianic hope would have been proven a cruel lie. Just as the Romans printed coins showing the defeat of HaShem to Jupiter and Jews bought into it, HaShem would stand defeated by Allah. I can’t image people enthusiastically embracing another 1000 years of discussing what you can hold in your pocket based on the configuration of telephone wires.

    Rather what would come about is much what existed after Kitos War a bitter religion of escape from the world. Possibly drawing from Judaism some symbolism but wholly non-Jewish and not able to replicate effectively generation to generation. That would span various cults and some of those would grow. But no, I don’t see anything you would call Judaism surviving,

    Israel dies, Judaism dies. As I’ve said to non-Zionist Jews, there is no plan-B.

    • philweiss on August 26, 2014, 12:30 pm

      Judaism survived Shabbatai Zvi, a thoroughgoing delusion. Religions go thru crises. If they can’t survive massacres because they are so identified with the massacre, I wont shed a tear. If Cahtolicism cant survive pedophilia, well — serves it right. Someone with training in logic could explain the fallacy in JeffB’s thinking. But it’s intended as some kind of blackmail on the US Jewish community, which needs to reconstitute the basis of its religious identity in any case and is struggling to do so.

  49. LanceThruster on August 24, 2014, 3:07 pm

    It will not matter as the nominee for the Rethuglicans will be even more loathsome.

  50. dbroncos on August 24, 2014, 4:11 pm

    Right on, Phil! I hope you’re right. However, I think Hilary won’t be nominated for a much more basic reason – nobody likes her outside of her tight knit fan club. The book she rolled out for campaign season, the one with a cover picture of her with a possessed look in her eye, tanked. Is it in the dollar stores yet?

  51. Keith on August 24, 2014, 9:37 pm

    PHIL- “And Hillary Clinton will once again be isolated in her own party as a warmonger.”

    As compared to peacenik Barack Obama? Whoever the Democrats nominate will be a neoliberal imperial warmonger. Whoever doesn’t vote Third Party should get a T-shirt saying “roll me over and do it again!” All of this discussion over who the Democrats may or may not nominate is a distraction which over emphasizes the political system (big business runs this country for cry sakes) and provides de facto support for business as usual. Enough already!

  52. wes on August 24, 2014, 11:45 pm

    H clinton,c lagarde,a merkel plus a few more are women in power 2016 onwards and clinton will be given the difficult task of making the medicine go down with regards to the i/p fagwatta.if it goes to the republicans then i recommend installing a bomb shelter if you live in the middle east.

  53. just on August 25, 2014, 8:42 am

    Interesting interview with Cornel West on Obama in Salon via Max’s twitter:

    “No, the thing is he posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency. The torturers go free. The Wall Street executives go free. The war crimes in the Middle East, especially now in Gaza, the war criminals go free. And yet, you know, he acted as if he was both a progressive and as if he was concerned about the issues of serious injustice and inequality and it turned out that he’s just another neoliberal centrist with a smile and with a nice rhetorical flair. And that’s a very sad moment in the history of the nation because we are—we’re an empire in decline. Our culture is in increasing decay. Our school systems are in deep trouble. Our political system is dysfunctional. Our leaders are more and more bought off with legalized bribery and normalized corruption in Congress and too much of our civil life. You would think that we needed somebody—a Lincoln-like figure who could revive some democratic spirit and democratic possibility.

    There’s a lot of disillusionment now. My liberal friends included. The phrase that I have heard from more than one person in the last year is they feel like they got played.

    That’s true. That’s exactly right. What I hear is that, “He pimped us.” I heard that a zillion times. “He pimped us, brother West.” That’s another way of saying “we got played.”

    You remember that enthusiasm in 2008. I’m from Kansas City. He came and spoke in Kansas City and 75,000 people came to see him.

    Oh yeah. Well we know there were moments in Portland, Oregon, there were moments in Seattle. He had the country in the palm of his hand in terms of progressive possibilities.”

    That’s exactly what everyone was saying at the time.

    That’s right. That’s true. It was like, “We finally got somebody who can help us turn the corner.” And he posed as if he was a kind of Lincoln.

    Yeah. That’s what everyone was saying.

    And we ended up with a brown-faced Clinton. Another opportunist. Another neoliberal opportunist. It’s like, “Oh, no, don’t tell me that!” I tell you this, because I got hit hard years ago, but everywhere I go now, it’s “Brother West, I see what you were saying. Brother West, you were right. Your language was harsh and it was difficult to take, but you turned out to be absolutely right.” And, of course with Ferguson, you get it reconfirmed even among the people within his own circle now, you see. It’s a sad thing. It’s like you’re looking for John Coltrane and you get Kenny G in brown skin.

    One last thought, I was talking to a friend recently and we were saying, if things go the way they look like they’re going to go and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and then wins a second term, the next time there’ll be a chance for a liberal, progressive president is 2024.

    It’d be about over then, brother. I think at that point—Hillary Clinton is an extension of Obama’s Wall Street presidency, drone presidency, national surveillance, national security presidency. She’d be more hawkish than he is, and yet she’s got that strange smile that somehow titillates liberals and neo-liberals and scares Republicans. But at that point it’s even too hard to contemplate.

    I know, I always like to leave things on a pessimistic note. I’m sorry. It’s just my nature.

    It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different.”

    • Citizen on August 25, 2014, 9:18 am

      @ just
      Thanks for sharing. Mr. West speaks the truth here.

Leave a Reply